The biggest debate in the history of humankind -Tannoy crossovers original vs new.

[Marco]

No worries, but I was thinking purely in terms of the sound. What difference has the change you've implemented made in that respect?

Marco.

[Denzil]

Very briefly, after taking off the aperiodic shelf (and effectively turning them into straightforward bass reflex ported enclosures), the quality of sound changed completely. They sounded as though they were being played in a hollow room with lots of reflections etc. (I'll give more details in my full report later). So I put the aperiodic shelf back but this time with half the thickness of rock wool (using your photo as a guide). It was better but still not great. I then added half a layer more of rock wool. Now they sound better than your Lockwood cabinets

I really will do a full report in a couple of days but it's clear to me that aperiodic, if done properly, with trial and error (there's no other way) is far better than ported for Monitor Gold 15's.

Denzil

[fatmarley]

but it's clear to me that aperiodic, if done properly, with trial and error (there's no other way) is far better than ported for Monitor Gold 15's.

Denzil

There's a chance you could be right, but I think It's an unfair comparison because ported speakers are very difficult to get right. Enclosure size, port diameter and length, port position, and stuffing can all 'make or break' a speaker (especially enclosure size). I'm confident I could make Monitor Gold 15s sound great in a ported enclosure, as I have with my own diy speakers (tight, deep and no boom). Obviously, I'd use measuring gear and simulations to model the low frequencies, build the enclosure, and then design the crossover (as all speakers should be designed).
I'm not saying to keep trying - I'm just saying, don't dismiss ported for the Monitor Gold, just because you couldn't get it to work. Without measuring gear and modelling, you're just guessing and there are so many variables, that the chances of getting it right are slim.

Anyway, glad to hear you've got them sounding nice and looking forward to the full report.

[Denzil]

There's a chance you could be right, but I think It's an unfair comparison because ported speakers are very difficult to get right. Enclosure size, port diameter and length, port position, and stuffing can all 'make or break' a speaker (especially enclosure size). I'm confident I could make Monitor Gold 15s sound great in a ported enclosure, as I have with my own diy speakers (tight, deep and no boom). Obviously, I'd use measuring gear and simulations to model the low frequencies, build the enclosure, and then design the crossover (as all speakers should be designed).
I'm not saying to keep trying - I'm just saying, don't dismiss ported for the Monitor Gold, just because you couldn't get it to work. Without measuring gear and modelling, you're just guessing and there are so many variables, that the chances of getting it right are slim.

Anyway, glad to hear you've got them sounding nice and looking forward to the full report.

Yes Matt, I fully agree. But what really gets me thinking and confused, why did all the big recording studios of the time use Lockwood aperiodic cabinets ?

Regards,

Denzil

[fatmarley]

Yes Matt, I fully agree. But what really gets me thinking and confused, why did all the big recording studios of the time use Lockwood aperiodic cabinets ?

Regards,

Denzil

You could reverse the question and ask - Why did Tannoy bother to make ported if aperiodic is supposed to sound better? Tannoy still produce ported speakers to this day.

I'm sure I read a thread recently where people couldn't understand why recording studios had replaced Tannoys with something inferior.

[Denzil]

Yes, apparently some or one studio later switched to JBL's because, from what I understand they were "more accurate".

Tannoy were providing designs for ported and for aperiodic in those early days. They still make ported, horned and aperiodic even today. Not sure why three different designs.

From the Lockwood website :

"Lockwood monitors took their place in musical history, being used during the recording of some of the greatest albums of all time. Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Who all recorded with Lockwood monitors. The Rolling Stones even installed them in their innovative mobile recording studio".

What to make of this I'm not sure. It amounts to all these great musicians and their sound engineers using Lockwoods on a whim. That seems odd to me.

Regards,

Denzil

[fatmarley]

I didn't know Tannoy make aperiodic. Had a quick look through their speaker catalogue but could only find horn and ported.

[Marco]

You could reverse the question and ask - Why did Tannoy bother to make ported if aperiodic is supposed to sound better? Tannoy still produce ported speakers to this day.

I'm sure I read a thread recently where people couldn't understand why recording studios had replaced Tannoys with something inferior.

Yup, but remember that "sound better" is entirely subjective [I reckon it does, as I've yet to hear 15" MGs sound better in any other cabinets, Tannoy's own or bespoke/DIY builds, and I've heard plenty]. Plus even more importantly, what's touted by Tannoy, or anyone else, as 'better' or an 'improvement' isn't necessarily always the case, as is the notion of the 'latest and greatest' new loudspeaker design automatically always being better than that which preceded it...

Marketing and fashion/costs often dictate the decisions of any company, in terms of what they promote as 'better', not necessarily sound quality. In that respect, for me, the ported approach is a case in point. That's not to say though that the results aren't good, just that the aperiodic way may not have been superseded solely for reasons of inferior sound quality. Other factors, such as mentioned, may have been responsible for that decision

In the end, always let your own ears decide, as there is no 'perfect' way to make anything!

Marco.

[Marco]

Yes, apparently some or one studio later switched to JBL's because, from what I understand they were "more accurate".

Ha!

"More accurate" based on what exactly?

Tannoy were providing designs for ported and for aperiodic in those early days. They still make ported, horned and aperiodic even today. Not sure why three different designs.

From the Lockwood website :

"Lockwood monitors took their place in musical history, being used during the recording of some of the greatest albums of all time. Pink Floyd, The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Queen, The Who all recorded with Lockwood monitors. The Rolling Stones even installed them in their innovative mobile recording studio".

What to make of this I'm not sure. It amounts to all these great musicians and their sound engineers using Lockwoods on a whim. That seems odd to me.

Indeed... Not only odd, but I'd contend also rather unlikely! I think they were a little more discerning than that

Marco.

[fatmarley]

I reckon it does, as I've yet to hear 15" MGs sound better in any other cabinets, Tannoy's own or bespoke/DIY builds, and I've heard plenty



In the end, always let your own ears decide, as there is no 'perfect' way to make anything!

Marco.

I honestly think it's because even Tannoy don't, or at least didn't know how to do ported. I used to own Tannoy system 10 DMT studio monitors - The cabinets were a work of art, large rounded edges to reduce diffraction, super strong but with a lot of attention to removing cabinet vibrations by using visco elastic substances in selected places. They'd obviously put a lot of thought and effort into those speakers, and yet they had the dreaded ported sound.

I agree about letting your ears decide. Obviously choose what sounds best to you, just don't assume you've heard the best.