Are modern speakers all just overpriced regurgitations?

[mhardy6647]

And most of these reboots can't match fresh modern designs in terms of performance. Trying to match the looks of these older designs can severely hamper performance. Some of these are better than others, but even the best can't beat a design more focused on performance.

I would suggest that, relative to the thesis of the original post, the more important observation is that the reboots are (almost without exception*) demonstrably better quantitatively and typically qualitatively, than the original models upon which they're based.
I think - again - that it can be fairly argued that they're not "overpriced regurgitations"* of their forebears per se. They do represent improvement.

__________
* with the possible exception of Klipsch -- although, even in their case, there are improvements. The original Cornwalls, e.g., were pretty screechy affairs - nearly unbearably so, with many recordings.

 

[Koeitje]

I would suggest that, relative to the thesis of the original post, the more important observation is that the reboots are (almost without exception*) demonstrably better quantitatively and typically qualitatively, than the original models on which they're modeled.
I think - again - that it can be fairly argued that they're not "overpriced regurgitations"* of their forebears.

__________
* with the possible exception of Klipsch -- although, even in their case, there are improvements. The original Cornwalls were pretty screechy affairs - nearly unbearably so, with many recordings.

Yes, very true. Just wanted to point out that even modern knowledge and materials cannot get them at a level of what is possible if you drop these old design principles.

 

[mhardy6647]

Yes, very true. Just wanted to point out that even modern knowledge and materials cannot get them at a level of what is possible if you drop these old design principles.

We're on the same page.

 

[sktn77a]

What are (arguably) the best speakers in the world today? That list most certainly would include the Quad 57 and the LS3/5a (measurements notwithstanding). So, yes, to the OPs original question - if we haven't bettered 1950s, 1960s and 1970s speakers, has there really been any progress at all or is everything today just different renditions of the SOS?

 

[mhardy6647]

What are (arguably) the best speakers in the world today? That list most certainly would include the Quad 57 and the LS3/5a (measurements notwithstanding). ...

I don't think so -- and, mind you, I have a pair of Quad "ESL-57s" and I do love them. They are almost amazingly uncolored loudspeakers -- but they have almost unbelievably limited vertical treble dispersion. They're also a bit tricky to position for the best LF performance. Have they been bettered? In those respects, at least, heck yeah.
The LS3/5a (which I also enjoy) are notoriously "colored" and were, it must be borne in mind, designed for a very specific application (broadcast audio monitoring in a remote setting, e.g., a remote van).
I like Art Dudley's list*-- but I would never claim they're GOATs (as folks are wont to say nowadays). They are superb examples of the capability of the eras that developed and produced them.

Listening #116 | Stereophile.com

This month I am writing about five vintage loudspeakers you should hear before you die. Why vintage? Because the best vintage gear offers an abundance of musically agreeable qualities that are missing from even the best contemporary gear.

www.stereophile.com

___________
* and, yes, I own a couple of them and I've heard almost all of them.

 

[restorer-john]

It's inflation and a massive overall shrinking of the market for High Fidelity equipment compared to how it was 30 and 40 years ago.

So we've got much less economies of scale, an ageing/dying market, more competition from other interests in the home etc. The big companies simply recycle and don't innovate much.

It took a company the size of Yamaha 40+ years to produce a worthy successor to the NS-1000 line. Over 200,000 pairs of NS-1000s were sold across the world during their run, and they cost around AU$3500pr in 1991 (just before they ended production).

The current NS-5000 costs AU$25,000pr. How many do you think they will sell? 10,000 pairs maximum?

At the other end of the scale are these cottage industry players with multi-thousand dollar bookshelf speakers, $10,000 8" two ways and other equally ridiculous offerings.

We'll never see the scale and effective subsidizing of the higher end offerings by the big players again in my opnion. The good times are long gone in that regard and people are being ripped off for loudspeakers across the board (no pun intended). Loudspeakers were immensly profitable even when they were cheap.

 

[Curupira]

The good times are long gone in that regard and people are being ripped off for loudspeakers across the board (no pun intended).

I'd love seeing a market study comparing the downfall of hifi stereo and the ascendance of this type of solution below though, or even if it makes sense making this argument. There's a point to be made both in developing and developed countries about the accessibility of hi-fi. Sure, audiophilia traces back even to the 1960s and the start of the mass market, but did the average american/european had actual access to good stereo systems? My point being that maybe the lower middle class that today can buy these boomboxes wouldn't be able to before.

But again, this is all conjecture, and I'd like to see data on this.

 

[Daverz]

I would suggest that, relative to the thesis of the original post, the more important observation is that the reboots are (almost without exception*) demonstrably better quantitatively and typically qualitatively, than the original models upon which they're based.
I think - again - that it can be fairly argued that they're not "overpriced regurgitations"* of their forebears per se. They do represent improvement.

__________
* with the possible exception of Klipsch -- although, even in their case, there are improvements. The original Cornwalls, e.g., were pretty screechy affairs - nearly unbearably so, with many recordings.

Another terrible "nostalgia" design is this McIntosh speaker:

McIntosh ML1 MkII loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system, a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone, and an Earthworks microphone preamplifier to measure the quasi-anechoic frequency- and time-domain behavior of one of the McIntosh ML1 Mk IIs—serial number BBB1256—in the farfield. The manual doesn't mention...

www.stereophile.com

On the other hand, Wharfdale seems to have done a good job -- based on Erin's measurements -- with their Linton 85th Anniversary speakers.

Wharfedale Linton 85th Anniversary Speaker Review

Wharfedale Linton 85th Anniversary Review

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

 

[EERecordist]

Right now I am listening to the Who "Live at Leeds" in my bedroom. Amp is an MCS 3872. Speakers are Scott 166. I am not sure when these speakers were made but I am guessing early to mid 80s. They have a 6.5" treated paper woofer and the Philips tweeter which I love.

Now these particular speakers are not going to dig down that much into the low bass region but that is OK with me since I live in an apartment and really don't feel like pissing off neighbors. My Speakerlab 1's, however, can go lower with their 8" woofers.

But here is the thing. I am not using any room correction or anything like that. I do have a small amount of EQ applied using the 5 band EQ on the MCS 3872. And the sound is very good. The imaging and soundstage is there and the sound is wonderful.

I paid about $150 for these speakers. Got them off of Ebay. I also recently saw another pair on Ebay and I was actually thinking about getting them and then sending them in to Amir for testing. However, they sold. Oh well. But the point is that when I see bookshelf speakers going for $1000 or more a pair I have to ask "What is the point?" if I already have a pair that is vintage and still sounds as good as they do. I get that they might be using some new woofer material or whatever. But I have my doubts that they are really building a better mousetrap. Not that these new speakers might sound very good, but did they suddenly reinvent the wheel and they will give me an audio orgasm? I doubt it...

Are speakers these days so expensive because they just don't sell that many?

If you are happy with your sound, it's all good!

Speakers have improved with better magnets, better design software - including for the port, ferrofluid, better cone & dome materials, active crossovers, occasionally better cabinet materials - Valchromat (better particle board)/baltic birch, waveguides, and servo feedback on the low rarely. The component speaker makers are always improving.

Madisound is an entry source for speaker components, though not every speaker maker distributes through them. No idea on what they cost to make vs the price.

There are many discussions aon ASR about the REW software used with a calibrated microphone - the total cost can be under $100. Then you can measure your speakers in the room, and outside in an open field to see what your speakers are doing. You may find audio hobbyists in your town to compare notes.

Much of the expense of professional testing by Amirm, Erin's Audio Corner, and others, are Spinorama tests which move the microphone to measure the directionality with frequency, a better calibrated microphone lake a Gras, and software that cancels out room reflections you can do yourself outside. You never know maybe your vintage speakers are on spinorama.org!

IMO speaker makers have a declining market. People listen on earbuds, soundbars, and "smart speakers," often over Bluetooth, and with compressed source music.

 

[mhardy6647]

Another terrible "nostalgia" design is this McIntosh speaker:

Yeah, I know

Another vintage "Monkey Coffin" loudspeaker reboot/update/retread: McIntosh brings back their ML-1

Bringing you yesterday's products tomorrow seems more and more to be the default business plan for "new" loudspeakers. https://www.mcintoshlabs.com/products/speakers/ML1?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=ML1announcement Some entertaining chatter about this "new" product...

www.audiosciencereview.com

 

[coonmanx]

Back in 1980 when I got my Speakerlab 1's I also decided to play around with an Audio Control ten ban EQ that came with a small mic and would generate white noise. I used it in the room where my speakers were set up and they came out not needing any EQ adjustment at all except for the very low end, due to the 8" woofer. Sold the EQ after that.

The thing is I love the Philips tweeter. Excellent sound and dispersion from that dome tweeter. They were even used in DCM speakers and McIntosh speakers as well. I did not know that the Scott 166 was manufactured in the late 70s but that does make sense now.

And the Speakerlab 1's have a classic 2nd order crossover and are sealed. How many of those newer speakers that use computer modeling for their design utilize the exact same thing. Also those Speakerlab 1's were very flat in frequency response, something we are always looking for in modern designs. So what exactly is better with newer bookshelf speakers? I don't know. Yeah it may have a different material used in the tweeter or woofer. But how many ways can you reinvent the wheel? I would love to put my Speakerlab 1's up against some modern speakers in a blind test and see what happens. Or even the Scott 166. Would be fun.

It also would be fun to have Amir run the Klippel on the Speakerlab 1's but there is no way I am going to ship those anywhere. They weigh in at just over 30 lbs. each. The thought about doing that with the Scott 166 has passed as they are no longer available. I would have just bought them off of the Bay and then had them shipped directly to Amir. And then maybe he could have passed them on to someone else. All for $150. Oh well. It was just a thought. But yeah, having Amir compare older speakers to new ones could be fun. And just so everyone knows... all of my speakers have dome tweeters. In fact three pairs utilize the Philips tweeter (actually one pair utilizes a Philips clone tweeter that is pretty much exactly the same thing). Oh yeah, the Avid 102 used a Philips tweeter as well, along with a 10" woofer. For some reason I bought everything that goes with a pair of those speakers minus the cabinets. Figured I could build some cabinets but that never happened. So I just have all of the parts just sitting around somewhere...

 

[coonmanx]

Yeah, here is that Goldwood clone tweeter, the GT-316. I used them in a two way kit that I put into some cabinets for Celestion Ditton 110 speakers. The kit originally came with Peerless tweeters but I substituted the Philips clone tweeter and am very happy with the results. I am currently using those speakers mainly for TV sound but I can listen to CDs with that system as well. Before I recently moved they were part of the bedroom system... Crossover is at 3K. The crossover in the Speakerlab 1's is at 2.5K. No idea where the crossover point is in the Scott 166.

Goldwood GT-316: 1″ Dome Tweeter | Midwest Speaker Repair

www.midwestspeakerrepair.com

 

[Verig]

. The whole KEF "meta" thing is largely marketing: per published results in their own white papers, the slightly reduced distortion is almost certainly inaudible. And we can't do A/B comparisons to check because they also changed the frequency response slightly when they went meta.

Sure, marketing exists. However, saying that they "changed the FR" makes it sound like an easy feat to markedly improve a passive speaker by... just doing it?

 

[Verig]

@coonmanx It looks like the Philips tweeter is the thing here. Apart from that 166 seems like a very basic box. But I must say I'm biased to tweeters when it comes to evaluating speakers so it would be fun to hear side by side with something modern.

 

[rank]

The Audax PR 125 T1 or Fostex FT 17 H tweeters are much better than their prices (if filtered at 5000 Hz).
Both 96 dB/W/m. Real measurement.
For loudspeakers, I suggest a double-blind test. We would be surprised I think.

 

[lowkeyoperations]

I pulled out my old Rogers LS6 speakers over the weekend to give them a whirl. They were $1600 AUD in 1988. According to the Reserve Banks inflation calculator, that’s the equivalent to $4320 AUD today.

I also brought my Amphion One15s from the studio to have a listen to them in the lounge room too. I bought them second hand about 5 years ago, but new they retail for $3,400-$3,800 depending on the store.

So in real terms the Amphions are cheaper than the Rogers were.

Subjectively speaking (I didn’t measure them) the Amphions were preferred in every way. Their bass goes lower, is clearer with more ‘punch’. The midrange is much more revealing and the high end more open. On top of that they are about 1/4 of the volume which makes them a much better fit in the room from a visual impact point of view.

The Amphions are still a 2 way speaker, but they have a waveguide, are time aligned and have a passive radiator, compared to no waveguide, no time alignment and a bass reflex port.

So I would say that the new speakers in this case are not overpriced (as they are cheaper) and are not a regurgitation as there has been several technical advances. On top of that they are a lot smaller and sound better to me.

 

[rank]

Generally British hifi is extremely overrated. And at such prices... Naim even made loudspeakers. Oh my God !
It only knows the low efficiency, the magnets cost less. I had Quad and Ditton, what a disappointment.

But has the customers, thanks to advertising. It's like everything.

However, to be positive, I have to admit that the Celestion K12H-200TC are fantastic for their price. With piezo tweeters like the Monacor MPT-177 (cut at 4000 Hz), you cover the entire band 50 to 20000 with 96 dB of real efficiency. And 200 W of power. In addition, very solid, which doesn't hurt anything. Okay now is Celestion still English? We can discuss it.

 

[Mikig]

as sales numbers decrease and the costs of raw materials and labor increase, something must then change: the final sales price.

There is no doubt that nowadays there are great components, the technique has made great leaps forward. This technology is probably cheaper than yesterday, but as always given the smaller sales numbers the cost of the study is certainly higher per specimen sold.

however, the choice, as well as price, depends on the final use regardless of the construction period;
-critical listening, better to look for objectively good performances.
-Recreational listening or collecting: whatever you like to have and listen to is fine.

 

[DearSX]

If you got great sound with your speakers, celebrate and enjoy that. Often times it is hard to get great sound out of even amazing speakers, like audio show rooms. Environment plays a big role, as does taste in music.

I heard the Kef LS50 at a local audio store with classical and it sounded amazing, some of the best I heard, from bass to details to soundstage. Purchased them and brought them home and could not recreate what the store clerk was able to with great room placement. Sold them. Have a lot of other similar stories. Heard Wilson Audio speakers at the store and was not impressed. Kef R11 Meta at Best buy, not impressed. I'm sure the environment and music play a huge role. My room is an odd shape and opened in odd places. Still I get decent sound with the Linton 85th and EQ.

 

[YSC]

Actually at your respective disposible income and age you would be impressed by the next best thing you can afford, if you are enjoying what you have, just go for it and no reason to upgrade, and certainly not before it breaks or you do not like it anymore you would try to look for what you wanted to spend and find the better performing ones. subjective sound improvement usually feels not so big but then the question is, when you can enjoy the newer and better designed stuffs in your next purchase, why not?

SOTA Speaker from more science based firm have moved away from solely driver improvement and more on phase and directivity issues to make the whole package sound better.