Vintage speakers, are new ones better than the old ones?

The graphs for the Matrix 802s2 are not very easy to find, Stereophile however does have graphs for the 801s2 and the original N801 , they clearly show the Matrix 801s2 and the Nautilus 801 to be very similar (there's certainly no leap in quality there). And just about every graph for the 800 Diamond series shows a subtle V-shape. This is also clearly audible, they sound great at lower volumes but quickly get harsh whe played louder, maybe this is because they are now marketed to home users more than professionals.
I owned the Matrix 802S2, and it came with an original lab report, the frequency repsonse looked impressive, not just by mid-90's standards ,and certainly didn't have the sub-bass and treble bumps the 802D has, that's for sure. (The matrix 800 series 2 actually WAS designed with the help of a computer)
Good luck trying to find a graph for the Kef 105.3, i am certainly not going to waste my time on that, if you can get your hands on one, be my guest

 

I see. Thank you for your explanation. I could very well save a lot of money here...

 

Originally Posted by jim tavegia

The advent of the subwoofer has had a huge impact.

Double

 

I'm looking at the bigger new Tannoys. The Prestige series. Particularly the Canterbury SE's. They're supposed to be incredible.

 

If I go that route that is...I'd rather not buy used if I can help it.

 

It's too bad Bryston doesn't make any speakers

 

Actually, they're in the process of developing one. Whether it hits the market or not remains to be seen.

 

You quoted yourself. I always find that amusing.

 

Yeah, I forgot to add that in the original post!

 

To some extent, the collective taste of the market has changed so that a leaner sound is preferred by the majority of listeners (how else does one account for the prevalence of that kind of sound in the market?). Aside from tonal balance, one would expect that modern technology would improve all of the physical qualities that supposedly affect the ability of drivers to accurately reproduce the signal being fed to the speaker, and hence, the sound quality.

Yet, whether more "accurate" or not, I don't necessarily "like" the sound of modern drivers more than some very old designs. There are a lot of modern designs that I like for some qualities, such as the bending mode speakers from MBL, planar magnetics from Magnaplanar, certain high tech conventional dynamic speakers (YG Acoustic). But, I also like certain really ancient drivers, such as the field coil drivers from Jensen, and certain Western Electric field coil and non-field coil compression drivers.

I own a speaker that I upgraded with a circa 1940 Western Electric 713b driver and a 12025 horn. I have not heard anything that I prefer over this combination for midrange reproduction.

 

Isn't this paradoxical? If audiophiles here are representative of audiophiles generally, it would imply that many audiophiles don't like most decent, modern speakers. Is that what you're saying?

 

No! We are a special group of audiophiles

 

I own a pair of Celestion 66 loudspeakers from the 1970s. Here is a
frequency response chart for these speakers. How would it compare with that of modern speakers?

Not exactly ruler flat, I admit. But I like it!

 

I've never heard Harbeth speakers. I own Spendor S100s. Are they similar?

 

IMHO, having lived with and owned them, the original Quad ESL is the most uncoloured speaker ever built. The top end can be tweaked simply by raising or tilting the speaker forward.

 

Exactly. A lot of audiophiles can't stand a neutral speaker because its too revealing to them and sounds grating and harsh..because the high end response isn't rolled off. Its personal perference and I'm not saying its right or wrong. All I'm saying is neutral is aflat frequency response curve from 20Hz t 20KHz with no roll off at the high frequency end.

 

They are. Truly wonderful speakers. I'd have them myself if I could find a pair I could afford. I've got my 15" Golds in a fairly similar sized cabs (link) so I'm kind of barking up the same tree, just without the finesse and precision the Canterburys bring.

 

Cool. No they're not cheap. I see, good job!

 

I love the drivers, the cabinetwork not so much.

If Tannoy refuses to sell the DC drivers separately, perhaps another company will make a product sufficiently similar. At any rate the classic Altec 604 is still available from Great Plains Audio and it is certainly in the same category as the DC, although each have their finer plusses and minuses.

 

I dunno, would it be the same as a Tannoy unit?

 

Well, nothing is exactly the same as anything else...but the basic design isn't so challenging that a good manufacturer couldn't make it in a fashion that would be arguable better and certainly highly similar. Since recone kits are somewhat available from official sources, one test is that it takes the same cone, spider and voice coils.

Tannoy themselves have made an endless number of variations of their own design, and there is no agreement as to which is "best". Most people like several.

It's much the same with Altec Duplex speakers. Personally I like the combination of older magnet designs with the Mantaray horn, or the UREI blue nerf foam horn or suitable simulation thereof. Others would differ.

 

Ok, thanks.

 

+1

 

Flat up to 20KHz isn't really neutral in the real world.

When they measure speakers they either use an anechoic chamber or, if they can't afford to use one, just take it outside away from any walls. This is understandable for the purpose of standardization, but the trouble is nobody puts their home stereo into an anechoic chamber.

In the sort of room almost all of us put their stereo in, the wall reflections will cause a flat speaker to be too bright.

So a speaker with some rolloff in the highs is more neutral.

 

It's just that I thought a bright sound was favoured these days. Not by me, but I thought it was generally favoured.

In addition to Hoser Rob's point, isn't it also the case that humans are extra-sensitive to sound in the 5-10KHz range? This might be another reason to avoid a neutral speaker. I think I remember reading once that many speakers were deliberately given a dip in this range to compensate - the BBC Dip, I think it was called.