New speaker technology vs. Old speaker tech???


The following is an issue that many members may have encountered: that is, buying an old speaker (vintage 10-12 years old) vs buying a newer and more current technology created by better driver material and using for example a ribbon tweeter, vs traditional silk or aluminum tweeter.

A friend recently purchased a monitor made by Monitor Audio, GX-50 Gold series. which uses a ribbon tweeter. His other choice was a VonSchweikert VR-1, a two way small monitor hailed by many reviewer for its tight bass almost down to 40-45HZ.

I liked the Monitor Audio GX-50, but did not want to influence his final decision. However, the more I listened to them, they sounded somewhat bright and edgy on several "redbook" CD's. He liked VonSchweikert VR-1, they seemed to him more balanced and the bass had real punch. However, he opted for the MA's because he felt the newer technology overall would be more competitive in producing good and detailed sound

Like my friend, I have often get caught up by the technology of new speakers,and ignore what sounds better and satisfying regardless of the music The VR-1 are very good speakers, and usually don't last long on Audiogon when they come around for sale. However, sometimes a mystique emerges around a speaker because of its unexpected performance that elevates it beyond its spec.

Would like to get some input on this "dilemma", especially the reputation of Von Schweikert VR-1 for being "more than sum of its parts"

sunnyjim

Showing 4 responses by bombaywalla

....buying an old speaker (vintage 10-12 years old)
had a good chuckle reading your definition of "vintage"! What then do you call the Klipsch LaScala, Klipsch corner horns, KEF 105, B&W Matrix series speakers, Tannoy HPD, Tannoy Gold???
Royj, good to see you posting once again! :-)
where have you been all this time???
I wish to add that far too many audiophiles are distracted by technology or even totally fascinated by it. It completely occupies their minds, which contents them.

These same people always describe how much better their music 'sounds' by its increase in "clarity, impact, detail, soundstage, imaging, depth, dynamics, ..."

They never remark about how their favorite music changed for them, changed in what it meant to them, what it did to them, for them, where it took them, ...

Either they are insensitive to the subtleties of music (and not natural dancers) -OR- their systems/physical setups do not reveal HOW BEAUTIFULLY the world's best artists are playing just for them.

Ever have any thoughts along these lines?

Best,
Roy
Hi Royj, likewise good to see you back here & we eagerly await any new speaker releases that you might have.

yes, I have thoughts about this all the time. That's why I have been such an advocate of time-coherent speakers (& I think i might have convinced a few others that it's the only way to proceed for playback). And, that's why I've been off the hi-end gear merry go-round for a while now. For me, and I'm sure for many others as well, music has to be an emotional experience where the performers are "in the room" giving you a personal 1-1 live performance. I always liked that saying printed on Higher Octave Music CDs that goes like this "We believe there is a place that lives within us all. It is a place of vision and clarity where the rhythm of life moves in harmony with a higher consciousness. The purpose of our music is to take you there."
Do you think there is any way to educate those people? From all my efforts, it seems unlikely. But then again, I am not a natural teacher, so if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears!

Best,
Roy
Green Mountain Audio
well, it IS hard, I admit as well. Many don't want to listen. There are several members here (i.e. on Audiogon; not in this thread as yet) who have been in total disbelief & I have had (unfortunately) a very negative & mud-slinging exchange with - all started by them, mind you & not by me. Many think that time-coherence is one of many parameters to taken into consideration during the speaker design phase rather than thinking of it as a design paradigm. Agree that time-coherence is not a panacea - it has its own set of issues to solve - but the end result, when engineered correctly, is a heck of a lot better sounding than 99.9% of what else is available in the market.
Some Audiogon members are beginning to believe this once they've experienced time-coherence for themselves but the process is very slow. I'm finding that the person needs to experience time-coherence for him/herself & be convinced that it did something positive for them. Then the willingness to change is much more forthcoming & they are much more willing to listen to its benefits. The audio big marketing machine has done a lot of damage & continues to..... ;-)