Jump to content

Sound quality - vintage versus modern.


Recommended Posts

Matti Otala was the one who hypothesised and proved the scourge of TIM - Transient Intermodulation Distortion. This in one go explained why solid state amps that measured far better than any valve amp sounded worse. I wonder if he produced the amp you mentioned?

 

He proposed that TIM was directly related to the "speed' of the amplifier. The bandwidth at full power, the slew rate (speed of voltage transient) The lower the slew rate the higher the TIM. This arguably led to the "slew rate wars" where manufacturers increased their bandwidth/ slew rates by many times.

 

I don't agree that you can isolate TIM as the one aspect of some SS amps that made them seem worse that some tube amps. The entire topology/design of the individual amplifier would need to be considered, the load they were driving etc, etc. In any case, I am not sure why someone would compare a SS amp to a tube amp with respect to TIM, as it relates to slew rates? Can you measure the slew rate of vacuum tubes?  

 

From my own point of view, I like fast circuits and fast power amps, they sound good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Assuming this is correct/accurate, I found this link useful to help me compare what frequencies sound like and help with subjective audio judgements and may also be useful for testing hearing with a set of headphones http://www.noiseaddicts.com/2009/03/can-you-hear-this-hearing-test/ At the frequencies you are struggling with its possible to increase volume on both screen and PC to max (be careful at lower freq), provided the background interference is not intruding too much.

The B&W DM16 looks like quite nice 3 way speaker for its time around 1980s, I've not heard it but once had the DM6 and subjectively it was as good as any year 2000 mid fi speaker (up to $2-3K+), so I assume this may compare with the Dm16. Roughly similar in sound to say a Krix Esoterix 3 way. 35hz bass response theoretical or actual in my experience if that is accurately what I can subjectively equate to is quite reasonable enjoyable bass, though less extension is better. I would expect that type of sound to be still relevant for low-mid+ current day speakers.

What seems to be missing from the discussions so far is what is meant by vintage speaker. The OP's RCA speakers are 1950s and I agree yes, massive technology improvements have occurred since then. B&W DM 16 is 1980s and this is about the period when I started my hifi journey and it took me about 10 yrs+ to progress from low-mid hifi to mid - hi level, and perhaps in the last 10 years then on to hi-end whatever that may mean personally.

Its difficult to compare exactly what was "best" at the time vs what is now and what levels are we talking about low/mid/hi end etc, adding in price performance issues. Yes, a $100K speaker should be no comparison to an RCA but howabout a mid fi $2-3K speaker?

For me personally what shaped my early journey in the 1980s & 1990s were low and mid fi speakers such as Wharfedale E50, 70 & 90s, Kef Concerto 3 ways & 2 way 104s, IMF 3 way sealed & transmission line and all of these are quite big punchy warm sounding and can impress easily. I also had many home demos of shop Dynaudio 2 & 3 ways, Krix Lyrix & Esoterix, 2 way book shelf Duntechs etc. In the later years Linn Kan, Quad ESL 57, Proac 2.5, Yamaha NS1000, B&W 801 series 1 pushed me into higher level appreciation. In the last 10 years Lowthers, vintage NS1000 and Accoustat ESL plus DIY speakers using Accuton parts, Scanpspeak, Seas and ATC mids have kept interest, along with trials of Ambience Ribbons, Magnapan 2.6, Kef Ls50 & Jamo Concert 8. So in terms of the OP RCA speakers, yes a lot has happened since 1950 at least in my experience and you should really have a go at the numerous options out there.

Perhaps if the OP can indicate a price level that will help to narrow what the options are?

Also, lets answer the OP question about improvements in the last 15 years and my subjective and observational answer in terms of:

1. Speakers - generally less improvement. Frequency responses are still 20-30 to 20,000 hz with some more ultra high freq capability for tweeters such as 30-40khz whatever that does for one, crossover voicing maybe more clarity, but effectively similar types and quality of drivers are being used with different aesthetics. In the ultra hi end driver technology seems to be improving (use of beryllium & diamond tweeters etc) but what about the sound? Maybe no big deal as no one has yet to emulate a 1976 Yamaha NS1000 beryllium mid dome unit in a readily available affordable commercial speaker.

2. Sources - CD/SACD is generally still the same in final sound result though convenience of "hi rez" digital source storage is a big plus. Phono is still popular and has a place for many.

3. Amps - generally not much difference except digital chip amps are more popular.

In 15 years overall the current day gear is better looking with some construction material improvements in the hi end or just mainly going around in circles (definitely in low-mid fi) but I don't think its translating into massive sound improvements. I would not be surprised if the RCA system would be subjectively sounding about 80-90% as good as a mid fi current day system, maybe 70-80% a mid-upper hi system. Despite the improvements in driver and design technology in current day speakers, its dominated by aesthetics (small/slim speaker cabinets) and whereas as vintage speakers were less constrained and you got a bigger volume cabinet generally meaning bigger sound despite older technology.

A wonderfully informative and well thought out post :)

Sent from my HUAWEI MT7-L09 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He proposed that TIM was directly related to the "speed' of the amplifier. The bandwidth at full power, the slew rate (speed of voltage transient) The lower the slew rate the higher the TIM. This arguably led to the "slew rate wars" where manufacturers increased their bandwidth/ slew rates by many times.

 

I don't agree that you can isolate TIM as the one aspect of some SS amps that made them seem worse that some tube amps. The entire topology/design of the individual amplifier would need to be considered, the load they were driving etc, etc. In any case, I am not sure why someone would compare a SS amp to a tube amp with respect to TIM, as it relates to slew rates? Can you measure the slew rate of vacuum tubes?  

 

From my own point of view, I like fast circuits and fast power amps, they sound good.

 

+1 on that, fez! :thumb:  But I would add ... fast women.  :D

 

 

Andy

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've mucked around with a fair bit of gear over the last two decades. Indeed, for around a decade I ran a second system dedicated to buying and selling second hand (much vintage) gear to try as much of the audio menu as I could. 

 

My views, based entirely on personal experience, are: 

  • Modern electronics are vastly better, in terms of sound and reliability. 
  • The turning point is the late 90s and it keeps getting better into the first decade of the 21st Century. 
  • The emergence of the internet, cheap and readily available computing power and the increasing speed of industrialisation in China changed the audio market significantly.
  • Semi-boutique, professional but modestly priced modern gear from the early 2000s exploiting cheaper Chinese labour (eg to name but two Emotiva for Solid State, Consonance for valves) will likely sound better and be more reliable than expensive vintage gear. 
  • Genuine high end manufacturers got it right sooner and the good stuff remains expensive and still sounds good, from the late 90s to some extent and comfortably from the turn of the Century. 
  • In the 21st Century Korea may be the market to watch for high-end audio. Japanese tradition and dedication with a healthy dose of Silicon Valley entrepreneurial passion. 

Have fun. Enjoy it all. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Also, in terms of the world of speakers what helps me to make sense of things is roughly knowing what drivers are being used in what designs. Over the years I have pulled the drivers out of many speakers and noted the driver manufacturer and model type and observed many DIY designs and cobbled some together to try out. What I have observed generally:

1. Low fi speakers (near white van type to cheap brand and even lower end of common name brands) they use the cheapest mass produced drivers with no name brand possibly costing in the range of $2-20 per unit and these can end up in speakers costing $100-1000+

2. Mid fi speakers with drivers (non brand mass produced cheap, some low end brand drivers) perhaps from $20-50 if that in $1000-3000+ designs

3. Mid fi+ to - higher quality speakers with drivers (non brand and/or brand name like Vifa, Audax, Peerless, Morel, cheaper/mid end of Seas, Focal, Dynaudio and Scanspeak and others) from $50-200+ in $3000-10,000 designs

4. High end with drivers (customised, low to mid end of Vifa, Morel, Peerless, Focal, Seas, Scanspeak, Dynaudio, Accuton, Eton and others) anywhere from $50-1000+ in $5000 to 30,000++ designs

It seems to follow the parts cost and production ratio of 10-20% of the retail price. If my external observations are correct and the speaker maker has not some how applied fancy customisation to the cheap driver that isn't visible, say for in the example of the ubiquitous Vifa xt series ring radiator tweeters that are relatively low cost ($30-50) ending up in anything from $1.5-30k+ speakers, that really concerns me as they are effectively not giving value to the customer. Despite the low driver cost this can still sound very good.

The vintage 1970-80s equivalent of the Vifa xt is probably the Kef T27 tweeter, lowest model Scanspeak 8512 tweeters and Audax units and others that ended up in many famous designs of the time. However, today we have a myriad of very high quality tweeters with probably very stellar performance but the same principles apply to use least cost parts with best possible sound to the customer. Designs with high cost drivers are attracting greater than family car cost prices and that should be of concern as surely if a car maker can produce a much more complex product than a high end speaker then is the high end speaker price justified? Some can be justified if using very expensive drivers like diamond Accuton tweeters at $2k a pop.

The above is not meant to be a complete summary of things in terms of product design, values and what the customer will ultimately pay for in the end. So getting back to the OP, if any of the above means anything, it may help to understand the background value of what you could be deciding on for the next speaker choice.

If I am understanding correctly we might be building a better picture of what the OP should consider based on his preferences for something similar in character to the RCA, with the benefits of modern speaker improvements. The criteria then appear to be:

1. Big warm, punchy and loud sound; and
2. Higher resolution, detail, accuracy, higher frequency response
3. Price of around $7-10k+ if Osborne speakers can be a guide
4. Physically large speakers to produce the big sound

The products that fit these criteria both used and new and available now or potentially in Australia are generally:

1. Osborne's ($7-20k) with mostly nice focal drivers in decent large volume cabinets
2. Used Wilson sasha in the sna classified ($7k) in coriander anti resonant cabinets, focal and Scanspeak drivers
3. Used multidriver Duntech prince or sovereign towers ($10k) with bunch of Dynaudio drivers in them
4. B&W 801 or 800 both used and new with latest diamond tweeters ($7-30k.)
5. VAF I-93 towers used or new ($5-20k?) with big bunch of Seas excel magnesium and paper drivers
6. JmLab focal towers ($10-20k?) with berylium tweeters and focal sandwich cone drivers
7. ATC SM 50 or 100 ($?) large 3 ways with famous ATC dome mids and 12 inch woofers
8. Vintage Spendor S100 or Proac EBS three ways similar to ATC in concept ($3-5k) or Proac Response 4 or 5 (all rare)
9. Vintage or new large robust ESLs with or without subwoofers - Martin Logan's, King sound, vintage Accostat 2+2 with possibly the best imaging, transparency, and voicing
10. Larger Magico speakers ($40-80k) ultimate current high end with berylium tweeters and custom drivers
11. Dynaudio tower models ($20k?)
12. Sonus Faber Amati and others ($30k+) with Scanspeak drivers and magnificent wood and leather cabinets
13. Horn speakers such as the Avon guards ($?) with high efficiency and stupendous life like projection
14. Legacy focus tower multiway in sna classified ($7k)
15. Large ribbon panels like Magnapans ($20k) with incredible imaging
And many others not mentioned.

Many of the above would be expected to have the higher quality drivers, later tech developments like ribbon & ring radiator tweeters, berylium and diamond tweeters, special anti resonant cabinets, modern crossover voicing, clarity and likely sound results but not always.

Edited by Al.M
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, possible but may not fit the criteria I mentioned for OP, unless with subwoofer.

ML-2's, ML-3's or MLT3's not good enough in the bass department?

 

I'm just wondering as I'm not a bass fanatic and am happy with the little ML-1's I have.

 

Was just that these speakers offer a lot for what they cost, and Mike gets some amazing bottom end response from his designs for what they are.

 

Was just curious...

 

Edit: I guess room size will have a big bearing here also.

ML-2

Frequency response: 35hz to 25khz /- 1.5db (in room).

ML-3

Frequency response: 25hz to 25khz +/- 1.5db (in room).

MLT3

?

Edited by Muon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refer back to the physical aspects of the OPs RCA speakers, assumed criteria and parts cost ratio and there may be about $400-600 worth in the Lenhan, assuming and I can already see the use of Peerless mid range quality woofers, if that means anything as we know that the secret is also in crossover design.

Edited by Al.M
Link to comment
Share on other sites



There is a lot more to speakers than the drivers, especially Mikes speakers..

 

Anyway, I’ll leave this thread alone now..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My budget dictates that I have mainly vintage gear.  But, in general:

 

• Good quality vintage gear is better than poor quality modern.

• Good quality modern gear is better than poor quality vintage.

 

With the exception of digital components, I would expect that the technology in modern units is better than the original vintage units.

Ultimately, let your ears be your guide, and don't be swayed by eager salespersons or b.s.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



My budget dictates that I have mainly vintage gear.  But, in general:

 

• Good quality vintage gear is better than poor quality modern.

• Good quality modern gear is better than poor quality vintage.

 

With the exception of digital components, I would expect that the technology in modern units is better than the original vintage units.

Ultimately, let your ears be your guide, and don't be swayed by eager salespersons or b.s.

 

Agreed, and good quality vintage gear is generally less expensive than good quality modern..... A generalization mind you as that's not always the case.

 

I'm loving both of my systems, they each offer something different

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Semi-boutique, professional but modestly priced modern gear from the early 2000s exploiting cheaper Chinese labour (eg to name but two Emotiva for Solid State, Consonance for valves) will likely sound better and be more reliable than expensive vintage gear. 
  •  

Have fun. Enjoy it all. 

 

I have been running ,as my main amp, a restored Rotel RA 1412 amp since 2008.

 

Amp was knackered when i got it cost $120 of ebay, the resto took quite a while and left me with a bill of $900.00.... So the amp cost Me over a grand...

 

In the 8 years of owner ship She has never once missed a beat...has seen off an original Naim Supernait ( $6K worth of amp ) sounds bloody fantastic and I know to seriously better Her I will have spend at least S10k+

 

Just as impressive has been my Rotel RX 1603....thats cost me a bit more $1500.00....

 

So long as there is an 8ohm load from the speakers there is no problem...

 

Tase.

Edited by Tasebass
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So long as there is an 8ohm load from the speakers there is no problem...

 

Tase.

 

Hehe - real speakers are 4 ohms or less! :D

 

(My Maggie bass panels are 4 ohms ... the mids are 3.2 ohms ... and the ribbons are 2 ohms.  All driven superlatively by my AKSA amps.  :thumb:  )

 

 

Andy

 

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe - real speakers are 4 ohms or less! :D

 

(My Maggie bass panels are 4 ohms ... the mids are 3.2 ohms ... and the ribbons are 2 ohms.  All driven superlatively by my AKSA amps.  :thumb:  )

 

 

Andy

 

Andy

 

Hehe...real speakers aint panels..... :P  :P

 

...as you will find out when you get your15 inchers!! :thumb:

Link to comment
Share on other sites



15" RCA LC1c speakers 

 

As long as the drivers and cabinets are in good condition, then they should equal the great majority of 'modern' speakers that have less than 'new car' price tags.

 

Ah, thought this was a different driver.    Still shouldn't be too bad even by 21st century standards.

Edited by davewantsmoore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hehe...real speakers ain't panels..... :P  :P

 

...as you will find out when you get your15 inchers!! :thumb:

 

Aah but the 15"ers will only cover the frequencies from about 60Hz downwards.  The rest of the frequency spectrum (up to 40KHz) is Maggie territory! :thumb:

 

Andy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

 

For background, I spent my working life involved in audio so I have a reasonable idea of how things should sound, aging ears notwithstanding.

 

We spent a week in Melbourne partly to buy a new hi-fi system and visited enough hi-fi to come to the following conclusion:-

 

Either Leak amps and RCA speakers were WAY ahead of their time, or a lot of modern hi-fi makers are putting glitz ahead of sound quality. We took our own music, records and CD's, that we knew well and were mostly very disappointed at what we heard. We were looking at systems basically up to $10,000.

 

Finally we did hear something we liked - a Devaliet amplifier and Ambience ribbon speakers. It blew our budget by a bit, but candidly the other gear we heard just sounded dead and lifeless compared with my 60 year old system. The system we bought though does sound great, bass not quite as deep as the RCA's but a somewhat cleaner mid-range and vastly better top end.

 

I know the RCA's were a professional type speaker and probably cost a lot of money, but even so I think it a disgrace that sixty years of development still hasn't matched the sound quality without paying a lot of money. Surely by now a mid-range system should be able to compete with a sixty year old system!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matti Otala was the one who hypothesised and proved the scourge of TIM - Transient Intermodulation Distortion. This in one go explained why solid state amps that measured far better than any valve amp sounded worse. I wonder if he produced the amp you mentioned?

Otala's work was bunkum, though. Led a lot of people down a dead-end (or at least unnecessary) path in hifi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finally we did hear something we liked - a Devaliet amplifier and Ambience ribbon speakers. It blew our budget by a bit, but candidly the other gear we heard just sounded dead and lifeless compared with my 60 year old system. The system we bought though does sound great, bass not quite as deep as the RCA's but a somewhat cleaner mid-range and vastly better top end.

 

 

Ambience ribbons - nice.  Yes, the mid-range is clean - due to the ribbon - and yes, the bass is less than your RCAs ... because the cone which Ambience use for bass is smaller.  IOW, if you have Ambiences, you really need a sub (better, a pair) if you want to fully enjoy, say, Bach organ music.  Which is exactly the same as with my Maggies.

 

But if the Ambiences have a "vastly better top end" than your RCAs ... you must've got used to a severely rolled-off top end.  :D  (As Maggie true-ribbons go up much higher than the Ambience ribbons.  They are much thinner/more fragile as they don't need to go down to the frequency that the Ambience ribbons have to, in order to mate with the cone woofer - hence they have better HF extension.)

 

 

Andy

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...
To Top