-
WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!
Vintage Speakers Worth Owning Today?
- Thread starter watchnerd
- Start date
mhardy6647
Grand Contributor
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 11,405
- Likes
- 24,751
Hard to do a properly controlled experiment
(at least with wine -- maybe with whiskey it could be done?)
bjmsam
Member
Last edited:
We optimise according to varying measures of value-objectively measured performance is one measure, there are others.
Perhaps you should look at the LAB MEASURED frequency response & other LAB MEASURED results for this vintage speaker (of which I own 2 pairs) [taken from HiFi Classic].
Lab Tests
Preliminary listening tests of the Dahlquist M-905 speakers-installed on the ST-9 stands, as recommended-revealed a very wide-range and balanced sound whose smoothness and lack of coloration were far beyond what we would have expected from speakers in their price range. In fact, the sound from the M-905's would be more than acceptable at several times the price. In view of this, we were not too surprised to find that with respect to flatness and freedom from peaks and holes the measured room response was among the best we have encountered.
The close-miked woofer (and port) response was also considerably flatter than we have measured from most speakers, with a very small bass-resonance peak. At the system resonance of 60 Hz, the output was only about 2 dB above its average level in the upper part of the woofer's range, and even that minor output variation was spread over almost two octaves. When the bass curve was spliced to the room-response measurement, the resulting composite frequency response was flat within about ±2 dB from 26 to 20,000 Hz. The horizontal directivity of the tweeter was only discernible in the room measurement above 10,000 Hz.
We measured the sensitivity of the M-905 as 87 dB SPL, which was lower than the rated 91 dB but still about average for speakers of its size. The difference may have been a result of different test conditions since we used a full-range pink-noise signal while Dahlquist's rating was made at 1,000 Hz. The system's minimum impedance was about 4.8 ohms in the 8,000- to 10,000-Hz region, and it measured 7 ohms at 150 to 200 Hz. Its maximum impedance was 28 ohms at 60 Hz, and there was a broad peak of 18 ohms in the vicinity of 1,500 Hz.
We measured the woofer's distortion with a 4-volt drive level, corresponding to a 90-dB SPL at 1 meter. The distortion was less than 1 percent from 100 Hz down to almost 60 Hz, the effective crossover to the port. Below that crossover the distortion rose to 5 percent at 45 Hz and 9 percent at 35 Hz. In high-power tests with single-cycle tone bursts, the woofer began to sound "hard" at about 350 watts into its 8.5-ohm impedance at 100 Hz. At higher frequencies the amplifier clipped-at outputs of 490 watts at 1.000 Hz and 1,380 watts at 10,000 Hz-before distortion became visible on the acoustic waveform.
Quasi-anechoic FFT measurements showed an overall group-delay variation of about 0.1 millisecond between 4,000 and 20,000 Hz and 0.5 ms between 1,000 and 20.000 Hz, convincing evidence of the attention paid to the phase characteristics of the M-905.
Comments
Although we have often commented on the difficulty of correlating the measured response of a speaker with its sound, the Dahlquist M-905 seems to be an exception: whether you look at its response curves or listen to its sound, it has an extraordinarily smooth, uncolored response. We tried to find some recording that would reveal a weakness, but we soon realized that was a fruitless quest.
As so often happens, there is little in the speaker's external appearance, or in the manufacturer's description of its internal design, that would give a clue to its remarkable performance. Many speaker manufacturers claim unique qualities for their creations, which only too often turn out to be "just another speaker." The M-905, however, really does what Dahlquist says it does, and we were very impressed by the way a two-way speaker with an 8-inch woofer could perform.
The best way to sum up our reaction to the M-905 is to say that it sounded like a far more expensive speaker than it is, especially in the middle and high frequencies. Regardless of its physical size and its price, its sound says, unmistakably, that it is a top-quality speaker.
My comment: Yes, the testing is not as extensive as Amirm's but the testing that was done indicates that it should sound quite good. And in my main application (running one pair [each speaker run by it's own NAD 2200] with a pair of subs {running 2 Ohm stereo from their own NAD 2200} Xed over at 80 Hz) it does sound quite good.
Jon Dahlquist (along with others on his team) knew what they were doing, as they set up their analog crossovers. And today, should one wish to, many speakers can now be adjusted to this level of specification by various forms of DSP.
Visuals are also a factor, I like my "monkey coffins". Their walnut veneer blends in with my décor.
Maybe these speakers are a rare exception to your rule (I think that there are many more) but even if one exception is there, it negates the blanket statement you made.
So why not Vintage speakers?
Minds are like parachutes they only work when they are open to the subject in question. And your opinion is just that, your opinion. Although others may have the same opinion, it is not a fact.
I've seen people who are a bit sniffy about JBL and vintage speakers in general struck dumb when they hear their first pair of 1970s JBLs (sympathetically restored obvs).
The engineers from those days knew what they were doing just as much as those today, they just had to learn it all the hard way.
The engineers from those days knew what they were doing just as much as those today, they just had to learn it all the hard way.
Yes, the engineers at some companies did know what they were doing and there are great vintage speakers out there.
Some won't admit it! (Or perhaps they actually have impaired hearing). Mines been checked & I know it's imperfections.
At any rate, making a blanket statements shows that their mind is closed to the subject.
I was fascinated by the Klipschorn the previous year, and i had the opportunity here in Italy which they are uncommon and find a pair from 1969 ,They are magnificent, and with my 8 watt tube amp are incredible, super dynamic and clear
I have not come across the Duntech PCL-3 (an early wall-hanging speaker under 4" thick), but I would be curious how they sound and measure.
Bert Whyte, who engineered some 3-microphone recordings for the Everest label, heard them at a show in the early '80s and reported his impressions. See p. 9 of this April 1984 issue of Audio magazine (p.11 of the pdf file):
Bert Whyte, who engineered some 3-microphone recordings for the Everest label, heard them at a show in the early '80s and reported his impressions. See p. 9 of this April 1984 issue of Audio magazine (p.11 of the pdf file):
Last edited:
Robin L
Master Contributor
Think the inspiration was the Mercury Living Presence recordings---widely spaced omnis. Everest did that as well. The label started with high ambitions, but by the 1970s their catalog was being treated as a low-quality budget label and quality control went out the window. I think the MLP series ended new productions about the same time, but its catalog was treated with more respect. Initial reissues were dodgy but later reissues as CDs were given the full high-end treatment with some of the best tape-to digital transfers of their time. I have encountered only a few proper reissues of the Everest catalog.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 23424
Guest
Am currently restoring these massive bastards. Look like a couple a teak fridges but they sound glorious. Replaced the much lauded on here Revel M16 a few months back. They're pre-ProAc ProAcs, or Celef as they were known in 1976.
Here's a contemporary review, with measurements, from way back then.
Specs:
WARNING: "Can make one dissatisfied with other speakers"
Cabinets now look like they've just left the showroom. I've bought two replacement Kef B139 woofers (voiced, not the BD radiator version) which I'll swap in once I've got the replacement XO caps from Falcon (who made the XOs for Stewart Tyler in the first place). Then I'll let the miniDSP Flex work its magic on them.
This, for me, is the beauty of impeccable DACs and transparent power a la Purifi etc. Can now play around with speakers like these on the end of the chain and perhaps add that particular little bit of colour that my own ears really enjoy.
That's my justification for having a teak addiction and I'm sticking to it.
This is the model that introduced the massively innovative new Airflow Disruptorvator Multiflow 3000 technology to the world.
Prior to this point they were known purely as "drinking straws". I may have made the ADM3000 title up. I can't remember what they actually called it. Supposedly disrupts airflow enough to stop portfarts.
Bizarrely the bass was distorting heavily when I got these. Opened them up to find someone had taped over the ADM3000 internally. Took the tape off et voila! Beautiful.
The aforementioned soon to be recapped XOs.
Nostalgic nonsense on the rear....
And those "individually, heavily modified by Stewart Tyler himself" Audax midbass woofers. Nobody seems to know if sticking cork on them to stop any ringing constituted the entirety of said modifications or if he adjusted voice coils etc, so here's hoping they don't pack in on me!
FIN
Last edited by a moderator:
D
Deleted member 23424
Guest
Ah, 'Resistive Reflex Loading'. How boring. They should've gone with Airflow Disruptorvator Multiflow 3000 if you ask me. Far catchier.
DanielT
Major Contributor
Absolutely. This for example. A couple of these in good condition, at a reasonable price, I could easily imagine it myself:
audiosciencereview.com
Technics SB-F1 Review (Vintage Speaker)
This is a review and detailed measurements of the Technics SB-F1 mini vintage bookshelf speaker. It is on kind loan from a member: SB-F1 was produced in Japan around 1978. It has a stout, diecast aluminum frame. I understand it was quite expensive for its time despite its diminutive size. I...
audiosciencereview.com
AudioSceptic
Major Contributor
I remember those: close to the Spendor BCIII IMO. The smaller Monitor and Mini-Pro were also very good.
KLH 9s
Quad “57”
Quad “63”
FMI (Fulton Musical Industries) “100” and Premier’s
Bob Fulton was responsible for inventing the idea that wires made a difference: Fulton brown’s. And Fulton Gold Speaker Cables
“The Gold’s could be used for welding and pulling stumps”…(Nelson Pass)
Sadly, Bob passed long before his time - RIP.
Quad “57”
Quad “63”
FMI (Fulton Musical Industries) “100” and Premier’s
Bob Fulton was responsible for inventing the idea that wires made a difference: Fulton brown’s. And Fulton Gold Speaker Cables
“The Gold’s could be used for welding and pulling stumps”…(Nelson Pass)
Sadly, Bob passed long before his time - RIP.
A curse or a blessing?
It was a fact that many hifi guys were running speakers connected with 50 feet of cheap 18g - 24g lamp-cord who's resistance could upset the FR on many amp/speaker interfaces. After the hobbyists grabbed on to this simple ohms law understanding of science, the floodgates opened and all hell broke loose in the cable market.
Cote Dazur
Addicted to Fun and Learning
I like your set up, you must have great imaging. Speakers, any speakers, classic or modern, need space to do their thing. (Almost) any decent speaker can sound great when given space in the room and any speaker will sound average to bad when not placed properly, and no dsp can prevent that, it is the room and placement that make it work.
I wonder if the Rectilinear IIIs I had as a teenager were really as good as I remember them...
Nice to see objective marketing blurb:
