Snell,Jpw, Audio note

Well, I like Harbeth and Spendor (classic studio monitor series designs), but dislike the new Spendor floor-standing stuff, yet LOVED the Snells, so what does that make me? :eyebrows:

Marco.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marco

Well, I like Harbeth and Spendor (Classic Series designs), but dislike the new Spendor floor-standing stuff, yet LOVED the Snells, so what does that make me? :eyebrows:

Marco.

---

Confused.

Sorry - was that question meant to be rhetorical? ;)

See my thinking is modern day speaker manufacturers tune their speakers to the extreme to work dvd (multi channel) pushing frequencies sky high to work with modern gear, which is why i prefer the older designs when they made their speakers for 2 channel only and sounded bloody good without fitting fancy bits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

Confused.

Sorry - was that question meant to be rhetorical? ;)

---

:lolsign:

I just know a good sound when I hear it! ;)

Marco.

There are good modern speaker and bad vintage speakers - It's not cut and dried. Modern speakers have the advantages of superior materials and computer modelling. Many also suffer from too small bass drivers, too small cabs, badly implemented porting and trying too hard to get a flat measured response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ledzep

See my thinking is modern day speaker manufacturers tune their speakers to the extreme to work dvd (multi channel) pushing frequencies sky high to work with modern gear, which is why i prefer the older designs when they made their speakers for 2 channel only and sounded bloody good without fitting fancy bits.

---

Is this true?
I must admit, I haven’t listened to many modern passive designs but don’t speaker manufacturers at least aim for a flat response across the frequencies the drivers will cope with?
The few modern passive speakers I’ve heard weren’t to my taste but that was usually because they were badly made; cheap drivers, truly awful enclosures that would make Ikea cardboard furniture seem solid and the sin of sins imo, ported to try to compensate for poor bass drivers.

After all, the whole idea of tuning speakers is rather pointless for a manufacturer. As soon as the speaker gets put in a room and given each room will be different then the speakers’ response in that environment will be different. Which real environment do you tune for?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Macca

There are good modern speaker and bad vintage speakers - It's not cut and dried. Modern speakers have the advantages of superior materials and computer modelling. Many also suffer from too small bass drivers, too small cabs, badly implemented porting and trying too hard to get a flat measured response.

---

I'm with you with most of that. However, superior materials? Not in my experience, sonically speaking. I can't comment on measurements. Good old-fashioned paper cones (when optimally implemented) still sound best to my ears - and sounding best in audio is what matters MOST! :exactly:

Marco.

So why are more and more people going for older speakers and they are fetching good prices? It must say something about their design and sound compared to modern ones.

I agree about paper cones. But I understand it is harder to get a good speaker using paper cones than with something more advanced like aerogel, kevlar or mica-loaded polypropylene. Break up modes, you see. I know from personal experience it was a lot harder to get a large 2 way with a simple x-over to sound good with a paper mid bass than it was with a Kevlar unit. The kevlar could be run all the way up and still sound good whereas the paper cone audibly broke up if I tried the same thing.

Well, the goal then should be getting the best sounding material (IMO paper) to perform to its full potential (Tannoy managed it), than settle for second best, simply because it's easier to get right....

Marco.