Vintage vs Modern Speakers
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 сен 2024
- Are modern speakers better than vintage speakers? Being a vintage audio collector, I compared a set of Vienna Acoustics Baby Grands to some vintage New Large Advents. Which one will win? Watch to find out!
The gear I am currently using are as follows:
McIntosh MC2105 amplifier
Pioneer Elite C-90 preamp
Pioneer Elite DV-46AV CD player
Mitsubishi LT-30 turntable
I am a long time collector of vintage stereo gear like receivers, speakers, amps, turntables and cassette decks from brands like McIntosh, Sansui, Pioneer, Yamaha, Klipsch, JBL, Marantz and many others. Be sure to subscribe so as not to miss future videos.
Email: stereoniche@gmail.com
Video: • Vintage vs Modern Sp...
Hi Scott, another great review, but like all reviews go, a bit subjective and probably going to ruffle a few feathers. I appreciate all your time and effort in setting up listening, editing, etc. I don't think people realize how much work goes into a vid like this. Is it perferct, no, lol! Yes I spelled perfect wrong on purpose. No review can be perfect, there are simply too many variables, power, placement, room, etc. Not to mention tastes, no 2 people enjoy exactly the same sound or look and so on. I commend you on your efforts and if any of the neigh sayers have anything negative to say, they should try doing their own reviews and see how easy it is! ;) Personally I don't think it has anything to do with new vs. old, cheap vs. expensive, etc. if it sounds good to "you" then it is a good speaker! Your vids do a great job of explaining what we can get from a speaker, realistically, and that IMO is all we can expect . Cheers! and Thanks!
Thanks for the comments. I pinned it to the top because your perspective is, IMO, "perferct" as you say. 🙂
At most, I hope to expose gear to others that may not ever see it outside of RUclips. As part of that effort, I try to relay the subtle differences between my baseline (Advents) and the reviewed speaker, BUT, we all have different tastes and far too many other variables as you accurately described. So everyone should take it as what it is, my opinion.
And thanks for the realization that it does take quite a bit of time and effort to put together even these mediocre videos. Maybe one day the channel will grow to the point I can hire a crew, but until then, just me behind and in front of the camera trying to edit a video that may find an audience. I am having fun and, BTW, I don't dwell on the negative comments, they are few and far between for the most part and I don't get my feelings hurt with disagreements. LOL
I'm running B&W 683's that are made and assembled in China back in 2009. I cannot fault them as I bought them in mint condition used in 2012 for AU$950.00 (US$700.00) a pair. Am I wrong? @@stereoniche
Old guy here, with my high frequencies dropping off fast.
I've read and more lately seen thousands of reviews, virtually all done by old guys.
Not once have I seen them post their audiologist's report!
Interesting point. That's kinda why i like Horn speakers more these days... Best Regards, from another Old Guy
That's why you should only trust measurement data
I am an absolute Advent fanatic…got my first pair in 78 when I was 18 so I will always be bonded to the nostalgia of them.
I had a pair of Heresy’s’s and then a pair of Klipschorns and now I am with a vintage pair of Cornwall‘s! I haven’t found anything modern that can compare to the Klipschorns or the Cornwall‘s especially recognizing the sensitivity! I use all vintage gear from my turntables to my cassette decks to my CD transport and on and on! I love your channel and keep up the great videos! If people wouldn’t be hoodwinked by all the modern stereo hype, they would understand our vintage equipment was made for Vinyl!🎉
The majority of modern speakers are aimed at what I call the "Boutique" voice. Ever-so-gentle rolloff on top. Laid back imaging. They have a muted transient impact. Polite. They sound really dull and gooey vs heritage klipsch. Real music is forward and has impact. Cymbals should not sound like they are behind a curtain or have tape on them.
@@scottlowell493 I totally agree with you about “polite”! I listen to music to move me and to have impact! Most people, when they hear my system say they never knew a sound-system could sound so realistic/present! But then again, most people listen to music in the background! I don’t have a doubt you do, too! Keep up the great videos!
@@scottlowell493 Eh really? Try Focal's, KEF's or Monitor Audio's for a change. Far more Klipschy sound if that's what you prefer. An trust me, if those (good) speakers sound dull, there's probably a problem in your system (or you just prefer forward and a bit brighter sound)...
Tried the jubilees?
Your videos had inspired me to start looking for a set of advents. Literally that same week I ran into a set for $100! Working on the refoam now. Thanks for the videos!
That is awesome! Let us know how they turn out and how you like the sound.
the materials and manufacturing processes have changed a lot since I used to work for Advent in the 70s. The cones for the woofers and the tweeter diaphragms were molded in house from paper that was shredded, mixed with water and binder in an old washing machine chassis. The mix was poured over a mold and the water was pumped out leaving a thin layer of paper for the tweeter before it was dried and pressed. The woofer cone was about 1/2" thick after the same process but was pressed to the final thickness and weight. Voice coils were wound in house and all final assembly was done in house. Cabinets were shipped in from Canada. I believe the motor structure of the woofers were identical, only the suspension and cone varied in size and mass between the "Smaller Advent" and the "Advent loudspeaker." I was young and had a great time working for a company that literally invented ways to make better products with ingenuity instead of exotic materials. All before personal computers and Thiele/Small parameters made modeling speaker products as easy as it is today.
Hey John, thanks for commenting. Can you send me an email to stereoniche@gmail.com
I have a pair of Cerwin Vega AT-15 I purchased in 1991 I had the drivers refoamed a couple of years ago due to rot and flaky surrounds. They didn’t sound good. Now they sound like the day I bought them. I use them with a pair of Klipsch RF-820’s and dual subwoofers. The Cerwin Vegas out play the Klipsch’s! I was shocked after auditioning the Klipsch’s at a local retail store. Sometimes vintage is better😬😎
Loved my Advents. Also had some ESS Heil AMT1 speakers that were awesome. Want them both. Thank you for your reviews, vintage rocks.
Glad you like them! Stay tuned for more reviews.
Great video and comparision. Despite all the odd factors i loved that you used a baseline set of factors.
Thanks for watching and chiming in to the conversation.
Great video Scott thank you. I have had various modern speakers over the years, but around 5 years ago I got a pair of Infinity RS 2.5s and never looked back, fantastic speakers, not sure I’ll ever change them, did some capacitor changes which made the mids and highs even better. 😊
I just picked up a set of Elecro Voice Wolverines from 1959 to use in my workshop and they sound fantastic.
The best thing about the older speakers is that they were designed to blend into The room more. Even modern budget bookshelf speakers have rear ports and need to be on a stand in the middle of the room to sound good (as if someone spending $200 on a set of speakers has a dedicated listening room.) I just restored a set of KLH model 17s. They sound great 8-inches off the wall sitting on the floor and they make enough bass that I don't use a subwoofer. Even though they are bigger, they eat up much less space in my small living room.
Rear ports and wall distance is a myth. So this comment has 0 merit and misleading. Cheers.
@@sagi_tech_n_stuff if so, it's a myth the majority of people believe. Nobody will change their mind because a RUclips comment said so. Care to share a source?
*"The best thing about the older speakers is that they were designed to blend into The room more."*
There's little to no evidence to support that! Even the perfect speaker (whatever that is), in the wrong listening environment (room) will sound bad!
Old drivers are/were generally inefficient and of poor quality (foam surrounds - facepalm). Look at the era in which horns, bass reflex, transmission lines, aperiodic, isobaric, jensen transflex, 6th and 8th order bass reflex(Bose) were born. It was poor quality, inefficient drivers that drove people to look for better solutions.
Speaker technology has come a long way as well, with far better knowledge and materials that have come into play, and the use of materials that were unknown when speakers came into the mass market.
That's why small speakers/drivers have become popular, because you just don't need A pair of Tannoy Wesminister's to have room filling sound any more.
You should review some ADS speakers, they made quite a few really outstanding models.
Stay tuned!
I’m with you, Jamerster1ful. I’ve got L780s and L710s. Still awesome.
@@stevezeidman7224 which do you prefer from ADS' lineup?
Tee-Hee...yes, I just recently hooked up my ADS Braun *4 om, to pair with my JBL L80T, the sound stage on them actually goes to the left of the speaker about 2' and the right is just about that much- a bit less, but it is because of my fireplace being closer to the right side...can't move the fireplace...haha/ But boy are they nice. ADS??? Hmmm, kind of a less than Advent speaker from what I remember- but it's hooked up to my NAD power envelope and a subtle subwoofer. Really like them and have no deep pockets for new speakers.
"the little Advent here". LOL. I had, as first speakers, Advents in utility cabinets. A little while later I towered with same. Would love to hear your review against that configuration. BTW, love your dedication and thoughtful, intelligent critiques.
Thanks for the feedback and comments. At some point, I will try the stacked Advent config. Maybe I need three sets, stacked compared to my reference set. Hmmm. :-)
Very interesting! To my experience there were good, very good speakers in the past (which used to be very expensive, and still are), similar to today. Perhaps the sound signature changed a bit? Or what we expect out of them? I'm based in Europe, so I've never come across any New Large Advents, even though they look interesting. We had Mission, B&W, Infinity etc. My experience with vintage speakers seems to be quite polarised. Either quite bright or very polite (often referred to as woolly). I still like the polite sound, as it doesn't really matter what electronics, cables or positioning you use, they always sound agreeable (I use a set of early 90s Mission speakers for that). Or late 80s B&W DM330i. But compared to more modern, more advanced speakers, technology wise, sound stage depth and width, detail retrieval, how natural they can sound, is hard to match. I do understand why people prefer the B&W DM330i to their more modern 683S3's, but the modern ones really are a good bit better. BUT... The modern speakers have to be at least 40-50cm away from the rear walls and corners to work well (most modern speakers do), and equipment matching and stupid things like cables really make more of a difference. Takes more work, but the result tends to be better than the old speakers. It's a matter of taste really. So if the sound quality of the Advents is so close to the Vienna Acoustics (if they're properly matched equipment wise and pulled WELL away from the walls and set up properly), you might just prefer the sound of the Advents. I just find it very hard to believe the Vienna's performed so relatively poorly.. Still, I would prefer to have your taste in sound, as it is MUCH cheaper....
I think modern technology provided opportunities to make enclosures that couldn't have been made in years past. Actually, I think designing smaller and smaller boxes like the Baby Grand was the impetus for much of our modern speaker technology. You could not put the Advent's drivers into the Baby Grand's box. So it may have been the trend towards making enclosures with smaller footprints that drove the direction of modern speaker technology. But it came at a price. A price that affected our pocket books and, I also suspect, speaker efficiency in general because it seems that many of these small box speakers take more power to deliver sound similar to traditional large box designs. But then again the laws of physics are undeniable. Thanks for the video!
Back in the day, we didn't need "Sub Woofers". We had Big speakers to do that job. Best Regards
I love love love vintage electronics but I tend to lean towards modern speakers. I had a pair of DCM Time Window speakers from 1984 until 2018 or so and I could hear them losing their luster a bit.
Love my new large advents. Best bang for buck $200 you could ever spend on a set of loudspeakers in my opinion. Drive them with a Pioneer SA7500 integrated amp from 1976. I actually use the matching TX7500 tuner I have paired with it, tuned into my local classic rock station. Plenty of LP's also spin with that set up. I also have a modern Denon 2 channel receiver driving a pair of Klipsch Quartets that I stream with. The detail on the more modern set up is quite a bit better, but I keep going back to my advents for that sweet warm sound. They both have their place.
I think having a selection of speakers/systems is the best of all worlds! :-)
Modern speakers. Vintage power. Dream Team.
Hmm, that does work well right? I use a set of Dali Signature 2.8's from the mid 2000s with a 1978 rebuilt Luxman R-1500 and it's fantastic!
That's been my most liked combo...1980's integrated amplifier, ~2000 speakers
Modern speakers, Purifi amplifier
Just found this channel and so for really like it keep it up
Welcome aboard!
WAF trumps almost everything 😂.
Thanks for the review Scott.
You bet, gotta pay attention to that WAF!
Good work and thanks for all the info. That said, as a fellow middle aged audiophile, I do wonder how much our deteriorated hearing range affects our perception of the higher frequencies. It might be worthwhile to put up a graph of our own frequency hearing range to give viewers the chance to put subjective ratings like this into proper context. I know for a fact that my 59 year old ears don't hear the higher frequencies the same way my 25 year old ears did.
I guess it will have to be a review of what the 50 plus crowd may like. :-)
@@stereoniche The older I get, the better everything sounds. Not a bad deal!
@@aarchiewaldron Yup
Good Day. I turn 72 this month. I've been playing drums since 1964 and still play. Guitar also. I like Horn Speakers now more than ever. Always have liked them though. Best Regards
OK, as someone who does DIY speaker building, you seemed to hit what should have been the differences between the two. The Advent is 10 inch 2 way in sealed box. That should be able to do fine on lows but beam on mid range. The beaming mid range is likely what you call sound stage. And because you likely never listened to Advent outside of sweet spot, beaming didn't cause many problems other than soundstage. And vocals, especially male vocals, is really bass not mids and the Advent with a 10 inch should be warmer than smaller drivers (in Vienna). I would argue that is why you sometimes preferred vocals in Advent as they were clearer. And yes, modern tweeters are better so you picked up on better highs (but the fried egg tweeter wasn't terrible). If you added a mid to Advent making it a 3 way, you could solve a lot of Advent's problems and they would likely sound better. And the dual 5 inch woofers in a ported box of the Vienna should give you about same bass as a sealed 10. Really key advance of Vienna speaker is it is so narrow, giving it the much higher wife approval factor verses the Advent with a box shaped like a monkey coffin.
Thanks for chiming in to the conversation!
Those fried egg twitters are are sort of two speakers in one , I have heard iner and outwr ring .@stereoniche
Advents woofer was the same one as in the Dahlquistdq10’s…
yup!
Over the decades - at least in theory - speakers should have benefited the most from technological advancements.
I mean i build speakers from the early eighties on and as a DIYer i benefited hugely from the cad/cam revolution that took
place over the decades. And its not only speaker construction but also chassis construction and production. But - and thats a
realy big but - in the professional field 90% of technological advancements go into cost reduction of construction and production
and not in quality enhancement that benefits the end user. At least not in the sub (!) High End market segment.
On a side note: High End brands like for example DeVore turn this general trend on its head through contracts with top end chassis
producers (in this case Seas) who can make precision tailored absolutly top quality chassis for them. i mean its obvious that in this
special case the Dynaco A-25 is the obvious design archetype,but technological the DeVores are way,way,way,more advanced and their
sound is just deliciously finetuned. Well,for a price. But it is a smart buisness model i have to admit and kudos to DeVore who realy is
a brother musiclover. So,that is "high end" i can fully respect.
Anyway.
Meanwhile even a middle class priced speaker should be way (!) better than anything that was made in the seventies or eighties in its
price class. But that is simply not the case. Why ? I guess that - at least for the mass markets - the surround sound era pretty much
hindered significant quality enhancements for a few decades. Simply because the need to accomodate four and more speakers
into a listening room - and the basic purpose itself meaning effect sound rather than stereo hifi sound - diverged the engineering targets
away from traditional HQ stereo. I mean that is basicly what is behind the rise of the compact 2-way speaker to the effectivly standart one
in the nineties up to today. Meaning HQ stereo in a small room or even nearfield.
Most ppl simply dont have the room (!) to place a bunch of mature 3-ways soundwise optimal (the old 4 channel problem). So the compromise
was a bunch of tiny 2-ways and a sub..... And this principle spilled over to higher price classes for some time.
But as things progressed over time a least from the middle class upwards this developed into a finer tuned system with a pair of stereo main
speakers,and a bunch of effect speakers (plus a sub because why not) for surround sound that could be added on demand.
With the rise of retro hifi into the mainstream traditional stereo hifi came back. The two ears two speakers principle basicly. And with it a complete
revision of how a good two channel setup looks like. Basicly it went into the complete opposite of the nineties and early 2000s. Instead of massive
full computerised AVR`s and a whole bunch of speakers the setup reverted back to early sixties state of the art with valve amplification ,manual
turntables and high SPL speakers. However this time around with 21st century cad/cam technology (and prices) applied.
Well,personaly im not a valve disciple. However,a well designed valve driver stage can soundwise benefit a well designed class-D powerstage greatly.....
So what sounds better is obviously the right path - for a lower over all cost. Nice. Thats the way it should be. Technological progress for the
benefit of the consumer.
As for speakers. After all those decades nothing replaces a well designed conventional passive 3-way speaker. Especialy not in the price/quality ratio.
Nowadays its significantly better in THD,impulse handling,power handling capacity,stereo imaging,resolution and overall definition than a couple decades
older speaker of the same class. And if not,sorry,you got fleeced.....
Vintage electronics are superior where the developers heartblood went into the project and listening sessions were done for finetuning as in most of the
japanese upper class gear for example. Vintage speakers should be not,because the technological advancement made in recent decades are just to big
to not have a significant impact on quality.
Well,thats all for now of my slightly drunken babbeling about this matter as an old DIY speaker builder and musiclover.
PS.: To the chanel owner: I realy appreciate what you are doing. It takes some effort (and hard earned cash) on your side to forward your experience to a
next generation. Thats a important thing to do imho. Otherwise everones starts at zero again. Thanks man,you are in the finest tradition what men can do 👍.
OK, Here it goes, and I hope my comment isn't thought of as negative or rude. I've heard Vienna Acoustics speakers at various venues including trade shows and frankly they are an enigma. Nice midd-n-highs but am i missing somptin? Where's the bottom end? It's like the VA sound engineers in charge of bass left the building and never showed up back from lunch. They sure look purty, and lithe but as Dave Thomas once said, "where's the beef"?
All good. What we hear is all subjective, which is why I do not use graphs. I've never seen a graph that can tell me I will like the speaker (no matter how good the graph results), my ears do that part. :-)
Just a couple of more comments:
1) I think the real value is in getting vintage high-end floor standing speakers. These speakers involved the fewest compromises and, if well executed, should compare favorably to modern speakers. What I am thinking of are vintage Wilson speakers or vintage higher end B & W speakers for example.
2) Lower end vintage speakers generally IMHO do not compare well with modern speakers. Modern speakers have really brought full range sound into smaller speakers.
3) It simply is not true that vintage speakers are less impacted by the room. It’s just that the tools and approaches to controlling the room have evolved. Speaker design is basically about trade-offs. So what you do see in modern designs are far more ported speakers because you can get better bass response that way. Of course, the trade-off is that you now have to think about the position of that speaker from the front wall IF the speaker ports out the rear. However, you can find modern speakers that port down at the floor and they offer better placement flexibility.
4) I don’t understand how modern speakers and vintage electronics could be a “dream team” unless you are talking about vintage tube amps. Otherwise, solid state electronics have gotten MUCH better over time and FAR more versatile.
5) What is an “end game” speakers really depends on the person. Part of it depends on what you can hear, what you value in sound, what you listen to, etc. For some, something like the Advent will be all they need. Personally, I’ve heard much better speakers, even 20 years ago, but they were not at the Advent’s price point.
6) I think about this quite a bit because I am trying to replace my 20 year plus old system. What I’m finding is that little of my former equipment is going into the new system
Knowing a bit about speaker design, your conclusions are not that surprising. Narrow baffle speakers in general tend to image well, generally better than wider baffle box speakers. I would have been surprised if they didn’t image better. On the other hand, modern speakers which generally have narrow or narrower baffles than vintage speakers try to compensate for using smaller drivers by using multiple drivers. That is the case here. My guess is that the modern speaker has a pair of 5-6” woofers. Smaller woofers can only move so much air and physics really limits the bass response. You said the speaker is ported so, assuming the port is in the rear, you can play with distance from the front wall to get some bass reinforcement, but there are limits. The Advent looks to have a much larger woofer and one would expect better/deeper bass response as a result. Finally, a good 3-way design with a good crossover is probably going to have a better upper end than a 2-way design unless really expensive components are used.
This modern speaker was design to get good sound out of a high WAF design. The compromises made are what you would expect.
Thanks for confirming what I am hearing.... and why! :-)
Yes, WAF is very important in some environments. Fortunately, in my home, not a factor at all.
I own NLA's & Advent 4002's. The two together are nice because the dome tweeter on the 4002 gives you a little extra something. Both use the same driver.
I have a pair of the old advent large. Also a pair of Heresys.. both sound similarly good. Wish i still had the set of my dads Tru-sonic 8 Full Range that i destroyed as a teenager.
Modern speakers are almost always cleaner sounding than vintage speakers. There were some some good vintage drivers that would still be exceptional today, like the K version of the Infinity Emit tweeters, the Panasonic ribbon tweeters, some of the KEF midranges etc. But overall drivers are cleaner sounding today. The cabinets are often more inert nowadays, letting speakers sonically disappear and sound less like a box. Internal cabinet bracing wasn't even something they were doing, enough years ago. They've also learned to narrow the cabinet to reduce cabinet interference behind the drivers. They also learned to round or bevel the cabinet edges. Some of the better speakers even take the midrange and tweeter out of the cabinet, mounting them in free space. People who like AR 3's, Klipschorns, JBL Jubals etc., lets face it; you like cabinet resonance. The bass is impressive in a way, but there's no way that you're not hearing a bunch of cabinet resonance too. I'm not knocking it, but those cabinets are not marvels of bracing and inertness. You're hearing bass + cabinet resonance. People with electrostatics and planars; you are not hearing cabinet resonance, but rarely are you hearing bass in the gut and amazing dynamics. Not many expensive speakers of today have the midrange that can compete with the 1957 Quad ESL57 speakers. But the midrange magic didn't extend into the bass. Not many vintage dynamic speakers with regular woofers and tweeters are very clean sounding, like so many speakers of today. Their midrange drivers and tweeters sound predictably very dated.
"Warmth is missing" is what some old timers think of todays speakers. Just like Christmas has become so commercial; bright spotlit balances which emphasize detail are more common than back then. People equate clearer sound with better sound. It's more about money now. I think the early pioneers were concerned more with proper tonal balance than flash. Their goal was to get things just right. Interesting that vintage speakers almost always sound warmer. The ones that go way back were used exclusively with much warmer tube amps. I guess warm is out and transparent is in!
Quad esl have no impact, no bass and a low rolloff of treble. They don't move air or do "loud". An acquired taste for people who hate bass, treble, realism and impact. Modern Sonus faber are designed with cabinet resonance like a stringed instrument. People who love those love cabinet resonance and highly colored and polite sound.
Well, try Harbeth/Spendor/Rogers for amazing dynamics and realistic sound and still fairly thin walled cabinets. The resonance isn't the problem (otherwise nobody would like violins, cello's etc would they), but it's how you deal with it. Both ways can have fantastic results, but in these modern times, building a very inert cabinet is easier to get right for an agreeable price..
Oh, and modern speakers sounding warmer (and also VERY nice)? Try the Warfdale Lintons...
@@scottlowell493 Ah yes, Sonus Faber, also people who build them like instruments, forgot about them. I love those speakers! The Quads are amazing, but I wouldn't touch them without a good subwoofer to go along with them, like a nice Rel (Strata 5? Also fairly vintage?).
The old timer who modern speakers strike him as showy for clarity but lacking warmth, obviously bases his observations on a finite amount of speakers he has heard. If someone was ambitious and energetic enough (especially at his age), and would travel all around and listen to 500 speakers, I'm sure he'd find a pair here and there that are voiced not to ignore the warmth range. My point is that glitz and greed seem to have joined hands in the majority of modern speakers. What impresses more for clarity and crispness is what's likely to be purchased.
@@sidesup8286 Oh yeah, I agree. For part of them surely. But there are so many different speakers and so many different voicings today. Certainly the cheaper speakers in my experience (modern ones) tend to be brighter to suggest clarity and therefore lack warmth. Lots of people say warmth is distortion (today). But really, indeed, it does take a little bit of trial and error, but going to a store with 10 loudspeakers switchable via a panel should already do. But shouldn't you do that anyway, trying to find the sound you like? Both new and vintage? There was a reason I bought the Luxman R-1500 and not one of the Maranzes. I really like to sound of the Luxman......
Do you setup each speaker to maximize its performance? Or do you leave them as shown in the video flanked by things that compromise that? I presume you are using the same componentry on both which is understandable to eliminate more variables, but that also likely compromises the full potential of one or the other. Overall, I appreciate your efforts and would hope you at least do the easy thing to position each speaker to put its best foot forward.
I try to position them as close to recommendations as possible within the limitations of my room, just like the real world. That is before I do my A/B testing against my "reference" speakers, but I do need them somewhat close. I realize this is not perfect though.
Take it off baby!! Why not for 6,000 fans?
One thing I'm going to be trying soon, is using a line level baffle step compensation circuit, to lower the mid and high end of the Advent. I've heard it can really improve the blending and transparency of the OLA's and probably the NLA's too. Depending on how close to the wall I'm thinking 4 db or 6 db alteration. Pretty cheap components to do it too
I would like to see a shoot out with Dynaco A25 speakers.
Will do, send me a pair and I'll do them next. :-)
Classic response, LOL
Vintage speakers bring good vibes ✅🍿
Yes...They....Do! :-)
Would love to nab an old pair of vintage speakers. I think you have to be somewhat of a DIYer though to solder in new capacitors, reform drivers and re-finish the cabinets. Worth it I guess if you get them for a garage sale price or know someone particular adept at restoration work.
On the vast majority of vintage speakers, cap replacement is quite straight-forward, even if you need to buy a cheap soldering iron for a one time use. Refinishing, most often, is just cleaning and applying some new wipe on/off stain. Lastly, refoaming woofer surrounds is really not too hard, plenty of videos out there on how to do it, but even then, a local shop will do them. After that, a great set of speakers for another 15-10 yrs.
Just for your own listening experience, consider double(or "stacked") New Large ADVENT speakers...I have and I'm hooked on the improved presentation & detail ...(David)
I do plan on trying that whenever I get my other set of Advents restored.
It's hard for me to say if one era is better than the other. I have had new and vintage with good results. I think it depends on the quality of course but also the sources and electronics used. It can get complicated. I will say though, right now all of my speakers are vintage from the late 70s and early to late 90s. My gear is a mix of newer and vintage. However some gear pairs better with certain speakers. It took a while to figure it all out. Great video as always
I have. a pair of acoustic energy AE1 s have had the surrounds replaced twice. I use a velodyne 12’inch subwoofer and to my ears the best sound
Diminishing returns are my biggest issue with audiophile products.
Very true. How much is a .2% improvement worth when you are already 98.5% of the way there. Hmmmm......
I'd like to hear how that $11,000 speaker stakes up against my ADS 1230s which listed for $1500 when I got them in 1983.
If I had a set of the 1230's, I would compare them. I think the ADS would do quite well.
@@stereoniche I think so too. I've heard lots of speakers since then in various show rooms throughout the land. Many I could be happy with but none that wowed me enough to part with my ADS 1230s.
The efficiency is terrible on these. Accounting for inflation, $350 in 1982 would be equivalent to approximately $1,007.76 in 2023 dollars. This price discrepancy is likely due the much lower sales volumes in today age of Apple Earpods. Liking and sub'ing good content.
I was hoping someone would tell us what new Advents would cost in today's flimsy dollars. Thank you. One point I don't think has been made, or emphasized at all: Henry Kloss, the designer & head of Advent made the original Advent loudspeaker to sound exceptionally GREAT for very little profit margin. He had experience (Kloss is the "K" of KLH) and wanted to make a huge impact in the entry-level bookshelf market of 1969. Boy, DID he !
11K for speakers LMMFAOL! I have one word, Audiophool!
What ever the market and your wallet will bare. I'd love to have TOooooo Much Money$$$$$$
@@timmotel5804 Sorry, I'd still NOT WASTE 11K+ for a set of speakers if I had Billions, that's just silly! While you're at it buy a 5K power plug, Audio Rocks, Wooden Amp knob and a bunch of other snake oil!.
In my opinion. Bigger is Better. I'll take a 15" or even better an 18" woofer over small speakers. I do prefer 3 way over 2 way speakers. I feel that so much equipment, of all brands is severely overpriced. Severely. "Pretty" is wonderful, but, isn't it mostly about Sound? Brands like JBL & McIntosh are atleast 1/3rd of their cost is in Their Name & Marketing, and 2/3rds is their quality and value, maybe. Whatever the market will bear, which in many cases, is "stupidly ridicules". Just my opinion.
I wish that I could get the "Listed Market Value" of my 1974 custom ordered Ludwig Drums that I bought New. Nice review. Thank You & Best Recards.
Thanks for chiming in to the conversation. Agreed, it is firstly about sound, however, many of us have to deal with our counterpart within the living space, so often times it also must look presentable. This is where the term WAF comes from (wife approval factor). Polk SDA's are great sounding speakers, but typically have a low WAF score.
l will give you 11 speakers (in NM condition of course) that I would have any day of the week: New Large Advent, OLAdvent, Smaller Advent, Advent/1, KLH 17 (and several models going into the early 70's), KLH 6, Dynaco A25, Dynaco A35, EPI (Epicure Products) EPI M100, Rectilinear XIa (yes, a sleeper), several Avid's, several Cizek's, several Allison's (that's more than 11). Then we go into the 80's and I would have a pair of Boston Acoustics A70's or early Polk's any day. If you shop around, all of these (and there are others) can be had for $300 and under. And other than having to deal with those stupid L-Pads, I still like some JBL's and AR"s. Put your money in a good turntable and amplification.
Scott, wasn’t able to view til now. I’m not surprised the Advents did well. I bought a pair of 1973 OLA a few years ago I swing in and out of rotation. They play great all the time. Curious, what do you use in your house for electronics?
Inside, for speakers, I use a set of Beveridge Model 3 electrostats, Altec Big Reds and ADS L710. The amplification is rotated more often, but currently using the Pioneer SX-1010 and a Technics TT.
@@stereoniche Wow, love the L710s! That’s my main speaker as well. I’ve had them on and off since 1979.
Great review. A couple of thoughts/questions? First.... When doing your listening comparison, do you use the same signal path and listen to the same selection of music that you used when you set the base line Advents score? Second... by my math, the $11,000 baby grands come out to $142 dollars per point to get to the 77 score and the Advents cost about $7 per point to get their score (that's based on purchasing a very clean pair for $500, which I think is fair). So $7 per point to $142 per point and only slight margin of difference? For my money the Advents just kicked them right where it hurts. I just picked up a pair of minty fresh advents and was completely surprised at how good they are... they earned a spot in my home for a while.
There is certainly a "bang for the buck" calc to be had for sure. For reviews, both sets run through a speaker switch and I do A/B back and forth on the same music to get as close a direct comparison as possible.
I prefer my AR4x and my KLH 17's over my Opera Consonance M15 speakers. They aren't better but I find them easier to listen to.
Funny that, isn't it. I could easily run my vintage B&W speakers all day, no problem, but modern ones for me sound better, but are far less agreeable with brighter stuff than the B&W's are...
I love my 17s too. The sealed ports make them much more flexible for speaker placement.
I think there is a better way to look at vintage vs. modern speakers
1) Design trends: vintage speakers were always passive. There were also a couple of designs you rarely (or just about never see today). Transmission lines (TLs) are still here but you don’t see often. Line arrays were also a vintage design that isn’t seen today.
Modern speakers: Open Baffle (OB) speakers are much more popular today. In 3-way designs, you are seeing powered woofers. You are also seeing good fully active speakers along with other electronics inside the speaker (Bluetooth, selectable frequency curve, etc)
2) Amplification/electronics: the big change is the advances in Class D amps. Back in the day, Class D was a joke. Not anymore. Class D could power your system today. In general, the electronics have gotten much more sophisticated and less expensive.
3) Subs: vintage speakers were rarely paired with sub. Now there are really good subs suitable for 2 channel audio.
4) frequency range: you see more speakers with tweeters with a broader frequency range. The result is that bookshelf speakers now can have a decent bass range (down around 50 hz).
5) Cost: the cost of really good 2 channel sound has really come down. End game speakers for most people is probably $5,000 or less today.
Picking speakers from 2 different eras simply does not capture all the changes that have taken place. There will always be good and mediocre designs from both eras.
All valid points that really need a separate video to discuss.
I heard years ago, and I believe, you can't get the same bass in under 12" woofer
I've got a pair of vienna acoustics beethoven, first generation(1995 - 2003) second hand, from a dealer I did buy my primaluna prologue2 amp.(2x45watt push pull kt 88 tubes) this realy pared wel, better thans a New sonus faber bookshelve model. (can't remember the type).
The high freqency unit seems the same as the tested model. I had to let change the diafram of one unit, its scanspeak, and cost me 90€.
It's nou playing with a second hand sugden a28b (high bias class AB with 8 watts class A). It sounds wonderfull, big soundstage, good tone,
Deep powerfull bass, Very airy, good placement and human voice to die fore. Speakers cost 1300€ in 2007, the sugden was 150 € in 2022. Low cost high quality sound, it amazes me every time i listen to it (digital Brit fy rega cd chord dac, analog michell gyro with grado wood).
rebuild the crossovers in the Advents using new capacitors or I'm sure there is a crossover upgrade you can buy for those things. I bet the soundstage opens up significantly.
In late 70s loudspeakers? I bet you those caps still measure fine as they are... They might not be as accurate as modern ones, but they do last a lot longer...
I'd choose those IMF's over both of those.
Great review!
Glad you enjoyed it
Those imfs are my picks
I will eventually get them reviewed, so stayed tuned. Apologies for such a delay in getting them done.
@stereoniche no problem. Looking forward to it and finding out how they stack up. I've had several models and found the bass to be possibly the best I've heard. Deep and dynamic while not being muddy. The mids and highs seemed really flat (accurate). The 4" mids sounded fairly accurate but the kefB110 that some models have was exceptional.
It's been years since I have heard them. I am curious if you have a similar take away as I did.
Bud Fried was definitely a man on a mission to include building speakers so accurate they were used in scientific research. Some of the Fried models were great to. I owned a pair of model Rs and they did not disappoint
Scott , have you tried stacked Advents ?
Not yet. Once I finally get around to restoring the other set I have, I do plan to give it a try.
@stereoniche I enjoyed your channel. I just found it today. Consider reveiwing Jbl centurys and pioneer HPM 100 , please. Thanks
@@scottsnyder7909 Thanks for watching and great name by the way. If I get in a set of Century models they will certainly get a review. I have a set of HPM 100 that I need to refurbish a bit before I review them. Next up will be some JBL L110.
Wondering if the crossovers in the advents are original? Could affect sound quality. Those are some old caps if they're still original.
Scott what's your view on Philips MFB speakers? David
I've actually never seen/heard a pair, but Philips has put out some very nice speakers, so I would lean toward them sounding very good if all working properly.
Were the Advents re-capped?
What ever hapened to 8 inch 2 ways?
The baby grand tweeters looks like Scan Speak brand
I think I'll keep my klipsch epic cf-4's that l got at the goodwill for 100 bucks... they have enough speaker cone area and cabinet size to allow you to really "feel" the music lol.
Did I miss something? We heard the Vienna Acoustics but not the Advents. This would be a much better video if there was an audio comparison.
I could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet those were the Beethoven speakers playing. I couldn't detect any woofer movement. He might just add some music to the video itself to break things up between the 2 segments of talk. Maybe someone should ask.
Hi there. The music is not being played through the speakers, it is a separate track strictly for that section without any dialogue.
$350 in 1980 is equivalent to about $1300 today, so still a wide price difference. The Advents blew a lot of conventions out of the water in their day, and given the return of the KLH 5s and Wharfedale Lintons, I'm surprised that no one has tried to reintroduce these.
I have a new pair of Tekton lore reference, a pair of Magnepan .07’s, and a pair a new pair of jbl 580’s. I also have a vintage pair of vintage Yamaha ns 500 and I prefer the yamaha’s
I own the 500M and the 1000M and love both of them. But if forced to part with one of the pair it would be the 1000M, the 500M's sound is so clear,warm, and authoritative, they demand longer listening periods.
The modern speaker sounds very clear but lacks depth and body. I have 1990 Jamo 3 way bass reflex floor standing speakers that still look and sound exceptional. Much better than the newer speaker you have there! But, you pay your money and make your choice👍
Small room with JPW Sonata closed box its only music.
Speaker evaluations are VERY subjective -- how is your personal hearing, music preferences, resolution of sound SOURCE, quality of amplifier used to drive them, listening room acoustics, listener's position relative to the speakers, and so on. I think if you want an EXCEPTIONAL speaker for the money, you should compare your Large Advents to any of the Magnepans under $16K. And use a decent amp to drive them. A Mac 6100 would likely NOT be enough power. And of course observe the distance from the wall the Maggies need. I had original Large and Newer Large Advents for a LONG time, then moved to DQ-10s and finally Maggie MG-IIIa's. I no longer have the room for any large speakers and am making do with the Magnepan "Mini-Maggie" system. For me, soundstaging and "openness" now supercede bass power and other characteristics that once seemed so important as a 20-something, listening to classic rock.
Indeed. All subjective. My reference amp is a MC 2105. For more challenging speakers, I might use something with more grunt, but for now, that has been more than sufficient. I try to emphasize the soundstage, as that is, for me, one of the most important characteristics as it complements all the rest. Stay tuned, some amazing speakers are about to be reviewed.
Old drivers are/were generally inefficient and of poor quality (foam surrounds - facepalm). Look at the era in which horns, bass reflex, transmission lines, aperiodic, isobaric, jensen transflex, 6th and 8th order bass reflex (Bose) were born. It was poor quality, inefficient drivers that drove people to look for better solutions.
Speaker technology has come a long way as well, with far better knowledge and materials that have come into play, and the use of materials that were unknown when speakers came into the mass market.
I'd choose Scanspeak, SB Acoustics, SB Audience, Peerless, Stereo Integrity, Fostex, Purifi, Morel, Wavecor, Dayton Audio, Acoustic Elegance, CSS, Hybrid Audio (if they still exist), Seas drivers (to name a few), over any vintage driver.
And coming from a car audio enthusiast's background, the subwoofer technology in particular has changed dramatically in the past 20 years or so.
*That's why small speakers/drivers have become popular, because you just don't need a pair of Tannoy Wesminister's to have room filling sound any more.*
If the day comes when I lose my mind, buy a pair of Shunyata speaker cables, along with a pair of Wilson Audio, Focal or anything designed by Andrew Jones ..... claim that McIntosh or Dan D'Agostino amps are; "Great value for money!" ... or do something even more egregious ... like considering buying a pair of vintage speakers ... my 1# ROT would be to stay away from anything with foam surrounds.
Has art improved? You can certainly make the same argument against any category really, but you cannot subjugate nostalgia. If you like modern, no problem, enjoy it, but one cannot simply dismiss those that enjoy vintage cars, furniture, tractors, etc. because technology alone improved. BUT! I certainly agree with the foam surround issue. Prior to foam, treated paper/cloth surrounds were used and are still viable. Rubber surrounds were most likely available if engineered to use them, but alas, that is old history now. :-)
@@stereoniche *Has art improved?*
As someone with a diploma in Graphic Design and a Degree in Fine Art, I can tell you the answer is an unequivocal; Yes!
"but one cannot simply dismiss those that enjoy vintage cars, furniture, tractors, etc. because technology alone improved."
... people who argue such things ... I wish them all the best when something like this happens; ruclips.net/video/C_r5UJrxcck/видео.html
I know which car I'd wanna be in!
"Rubber surrounds were most likely available if engineered to use them"
I'm talking about speakers from the 90's and naughties even ... not just from the 60's. Foam surrounds are speaker technology that belongs in the bin!
2024, we're still learning about acoustics, and thanks to the groundwork of those who've gone before, along with new technology, we're getting better and better at it;
*Can a 3D printed enclosure get low?*
3" Tang Band Sub demo
ruclips.net/video/0tt3QHRiaRI/видео.htmlsi=l6CCVVaqIX3VCeor&t=321
If one wants to harp on about the past, I wish them all the best. But one thing that is demonstrably true, people that do are missing out. Improved products and sound when it comes to audio, better research when it comes to acoustics, and faster, more reliable (or not in the case of German cars) and far safer, when it comes to transport.
@@juststuff5216 Well, there is no correct answer here, of course, but I will take you at your moniker, it is all "Just Stuff". 🤣
Ouch, sometimes we cannot engineer in enough protection: www.yahoo.com/autos/dodge-challenger-slams-tractor-trailer-193000079.html
@@stereoniche That's the problem, there is very much a "correct answer" and it's demonstrable, and repeatable.
If people want to carry on with their own delusion (call it the Trump/Brexit syndrome), then I wish them the best. However, there very much is a better way!
The better Vienna acoustics used scan-speak drivers. Nothing vintage is a match for those. The best Kef, infinity etc have serious limits vs scan speak.
Don't those drivers react best to a lot of raw power? 300 wpc say? There are vintage beasts as well that sould be able to do that. But positioning of the speakers also REALLY matters...
@@erwindewit4073 You can position vintage any way you want, they aren't as good.
Sigh. $11k for the modern ones? It's amazing and rather sad how much the price of speakers has risen. My speakers are much, much larger (almost six feet), more inert (370 lbs each), have line source ribbons for the mids and ribbon tweeters, are actively biamped, and I paid $10k for them. Today, I'd have to pay above $50k to get anything like them.
Indeed. I've not seen an inflation calc for speakers, but I agree. They have skyrocketed for higher end speakers. Certainly a LOT of bargains for high end used gear. Personally, I think high end speakers from the 80's and forward can compete VERY well with any high end modern speakers, but they have to sell the buyer on those new and improved materials. What models are you running?
@@stereoniche I use the VPMS FF1s. 68 inches tall, 350 lbs each, 3" thick front baffles. Originally, they each had two 12" carbon fiber woofers, two 5" carbon fiber midranges, two 1" Morel softdome tweeters, and a leaf ribbon supertweeter. The -3 dB points were 14 Hz and 45kHz. Obviously very robust, costly cabinets and high end drivers. All that cost me a whopping $5800. My mind boggles at what I'd have to pay today for such drivers and construction. A couple of years after I bought them, the dealer came to my home and personally upgraded them, replacing the softdomes with ribbon tweeters, and the midranges with line source ribbons, the same ribbons used in the $300k Genesis Dragon (an updated version of the Infinity Reference Standard). That cost me an additional $3k. I hold onto my speakers for dear life. I consider them irreplaceable.
If there's one advantage that vintage speakers have over the new ones, it's aesthetics. Nearly all new speakers are boring, anonymous all-black boxes, including all-black grilles (if they have grilles at all).
How "modern" is modern? Next month, my speakers will be 30 years old. But they definitely use modern materials--carbon fiber woofers, ribbon mids and tweeters.
There isn't exactly a date when companies decided to make "Modern" speakers, but generally speaking, that would be 90's or newer. Most that want to debate the issue, I think, are typically thinking 70's era speakers and older. Although, even in the 70's one can find speakers using exotic material, it was just not very common.
So we're supposed to be able to compare the sound of the speakers through the tiny shit speakers we have on our PCs?
Since I do not believe that to be possible, I don't play any music through the speakers I am comparing in the videos. It is all my own listening and comments. So not really sure what is your point. Any music you are hearing in the video is just background music (like a commercial).
Thanks for the review. Do you have a previous comparison of both vintage advent vs dynaco a25? Curios to know.
Have incorporated drivability of the speakers like how many minimum watts to make them sing and come alive?
I also noticed most column style modern floorstanding lacks scale, I hope you mention those in your future speaker reviews, thanks.
Although I have had/have quite a lot of speakers, I have yet to own any Dynaco, but I will surely do a review of them when I get a set.
close to 40yr ago I had Dynaco A35XL dual chamber aperiodic speakers with SEAS 10 and very nice dome tweeter - just lovely in the mids - not as extended in the low end of the Large Advent. IIRC I ran the Dyna A35XL off a Dynaco Sterero 400 kit I assembled. That was a nice solid state amp - maybe better than the 416 if one had nominal 8 ohm speakers. These days I know that a small bypass cap on each of the main filter capacitors would enhance the speed and make the bass seem even faster and adept.
I would say a sleeper speaker to collect would be the KLH17 whose Qtc IIRC was lower than that of the Large Advent so what bass it has would be more accurate (less "warm") . I was very fond of Henry's KLH Six and in that day used it with the wonderful EICO ST-70 integrated amplifier which was and is better than a Dynaco Stereo 70. The EICO ST-70 is as least as good if not better than EICO's HF87. My first EICO stereo amp was the ST40 with (IIRC) a" Williamson" type driver inverter.
@nkab51 Wow, I still own 3 Eico 70's -- first time I ever heard they sounded better than the legendary(!) Dyna 70s. I, used two together for a 4-channel system from 1977-1989 with Advents, then DQ-10s, and finally MG3a's on the front ,with A25XL's on the rear (thru an Audio Pulse Delay unit.) It sounded great!
Firstly i gotta say love the content and effort and very familiar with the advent , as a matter of fact back in the early 70’s , i jad preferred the sound of the KLH over the advents so ended up with KLH model 17’s ..
IMO your assessment of the advents is way over stated maybe more bias leaning than reality , no way unless its poorly setup or under amplified or both vs the Advent , for these two speakers be that close, after hearing the poor timbre , massive coloration and lack of realism presented by the advent should represent an overall larger gap ..!
Regards
Hey there! It is all subjective, so realistically, there are no wrong perspectives. Thanks for adding to the conversation.
Are you a speaker fan of vintage cerwin Vega speakers?
I like CV's, unfortunately, the models I have owned since I relocated have not been in the best of condition so I have parted with them. I would love to find some of the upper end D series. If so, my plan would be to fit them out with some real wood veneer. They are kind of in a class by themselves.
Buying a vintage speaker is like being a vintage refrigerator, it makes no sense at all.
2 best speakers ever made are the sansui sp 3500 and the realistic mach 1 and if you have never listened to these speakers your missing out good value and new reproduction drivers are available if you chose to refoam or replace them you can get a pair of either for around 400 bucks in nice shape and they will shake your house with plenty of mid high and low end
have a pair of Sansui sp5500, wowwww, and i tested against Dali oberon 7, klipsch rp600mk2, klipsch rp-820, and the sansui is just wowww, its my main front speaker now, get the sansui for free xD
The advent got a score of 74 in previous videos. In this one you took 2 points off. What gives?
Yes, after doing a number of comparisons, I felt the imaging score was a little too much, so I reduced it by that difference. I explained it back then, but it is in a prior video.
Yeah so just by showing those so-called drawings of where the soundstages is, that already shows that you didn't even try to put the speakers in proper positions to test and compare you probably left him right there as they are right now in the video.
yeah you can't take that serious at all, and then of course there is a thing called bias.
Yes, aren't you a bit biassed here? I would assume the same hearing about the results, but it's quite possible they were put in the proper positions, but Scott didn't think it was important to mention.... And also, if you prefer to put your speakers where you like them looking the best, what's wrong with that. But I agree, it could well make all the difference. We just don't know..
No way that those little two tiny woofers, can put out as much bass as the Advents. Especially at max volume levels, and highly dynamic music. Maybe they are "OK" at mid volume levels... but at high volume? No way. And being that they are Ported, they probably sound very Artificial, and probably experience Port-Chuff. These look like most overpriced ECO speakers.
Oh coarse, you didn’t hear them so you’re only making a prediction.
@@robertthurston6858 Im going by the 30 speakers Ive owned, and hearing many countless others in-person.
Its not about Prediction. Its about Physics, and actual experience.
Actually one of Harry Pearson's last pet speakers was one that had a vertical array of very small drivers and they extended below human audibility. As the total woofer area from all the small drivers added up. The small woofers in the Beethoven added up to the equivelent of the surface area of a bigger single woofer, and it did compete on an even plane with the Advents, a speaker most famous for it's bass. A lot of misunderstanding and wives tales in audio.
@@sidesup8286 There is a big difference between exaggerated / artificial bass extension, and musically accurate bass.
Ive heard plenty of speakers that use long tubes, and tuned ports... that sound "Fake".
When you hear what real bass is supposed to sound like... you can never go back.
I wasn't a fan of ports either. Then I heard a speaker with a rectangular horizontal port or vent on the back, which convinced me. Tightest most defined bass I'd ever heard. Forgot the name of it, and forgot all my biases against ports. I've never heard a speaker with a round port that I've liked. Maybe coincidence.
👍👍👍
both era's had good and bad products. lol
Yeah, all era's did and do.. We just forgot about the crappy older stuff..
Of course it depends on the price point. Would any of the speakers from the 1970s or 1980s even come within 100 yards of Focal Grand Utopias, MBL speakers, Eggleston speakers, Avantgarde speakers etc? Some of the best speakers back then were the Fulton J, Acoustat X, Dahlquist DQ10 (especially stacked in a special stand), Magnepan, Snell Tye A II, etc. Plus the IMF speakers that Scott said would be forthcoming in a future video. Perhaps the best speakers were far enough along by the late 1970's and 1980s that earthshaking improvements would cost a lot of money, and we don't get that kind of technology at lower price points. Of course the prices on those modern marvels are well beyond reach of the vast majority of consumers. So the real question might be; are modern speakers that are financially feasible better than vintage speakers that were financially feasible back then?
@@sidesup8286 I've tried some older flagship Infinity's and B&W's and there were great! But nothing remotely like the really good speakers of today. I've talked to 2 loudspeaker manufacturers, and they told me that lots of stuff they do today to make their speakers SO good just wasn't possible 30-40 years ago..
I listened to a vintage set of Harbeth speakers (these are the great speakers designed by the BBC in the UK) and my new ones (M30.1). While the vintage ones did have a nice smooth warmer sound, it wasn't close in performance.
So of all the gear, I think speakers have developed the most. So they are the ones I mostly prefer from a more modern period.
Although I do miss the easy setup and easy listening nature of many of the old speakers...
New speakers have no bass
First of all ... Playing speakers on a RUclips video for purposes of sound demonstration is just silly and a waste of time. I'm going to hear *_MY_* speakers not *_YOUR_* speakers. Even with the highest quality headphones I'm still hearing the speakers in the headphones not what I would hear if I were standing next to you in your studio with speakers playing live. There's also the fact that all RUclips videos use compression and other sound altering technologies. Trying to demonstrate speakers on a RUclips channel is useless. Please stop doing that, it's just a worthless effort.
All of that said, the biggest problem with vintage vs. modern speakers is a matter of availability. With vintage speakers you have to take what's available, with modern speakers you have a choice of everything that is currently offered for sale.
The biggest difference is in the price. You can pick up vintage speakers for pennies on the dollar and for not a lot of money get speakers that originally retailed for thousands of dollars. (With even more savings if you're willing to put in the work of re-foaming and re-capping them.) I'm running some vintage Cerwin-Vegas that I put new surrounds and caps in and I'm totally happy with them. I'm not an audio purist of the obsessive type, my hearing isn't that good anyway. I'm more than happy to get speakers that perform in the 95% - 99% scale compared to modern speakers and save a *_LOT_* of money. I get great sound that I can actually afford.
"Trying to demonstrate speakers on a RUclips channel is useless. Please stop doing that, it's just a worthless effort."
I've never played back ANY speakers in ANY video for demonstration for the very points you laid out. Perhaps you did not fully watch the video?? You may have thought perhaps during the up close video that the speakers were playing, they are not, it is just background audio for affect as I showcase how awesome looking are vintage speakers and gear in each of my videos (like a commercial).
On your remaining points, they echo my thoughts and comments since the inception of this channel. I recommend that one look for the best vintage speakers available, but with one caveat, look for them locally. Do not ship, but perhaps find them for local pickup on Ebay, etc.. I am working on a new video with recommendations on how to find vintage gear and some of these points will be reinforced.
Thanks for chiming into the conversation.
mostly a waste of time
Vintage..... Nope.
Hi Scot.. do you have any model of vintage Bowers and wilkins that you might want to do a review? Thanks
Yes I do! I have a set of B&W Nautilus 803, but I need to replace a tweeter diaphragm.
The Advent was an entry level speaker designed in 1969. Its performance by today's standards is terrible, compared with the best "budget" speakers available now. It was considered a "high value, best buy product" in its day. Vienna Acoustics is a rather obscure European company that manufactures "high end" loudspeakers using modern components. Having been in the business myself, I'll just say that this comparison is "apples to oranges". The Vienna Acoustics is a very poor example of a modern day loudspeaker. It performs poorly in measurements and has very little bass extension. The Advent was a decent performer in its day, but far from the best example of vintage sound quality. It was $100 each and the compromises at that price point were well known at the time. A proper comparison would be between the Advent and something from Elac, Definitive, Polk, PSB, etc. at less than $500-$1000 a pair. Anyone of those would walk all over the Advent in every performance area except bass extension. Add a cheap sub and it would be no contest.
The Advent compared to cheap modern speakers is not what this review is about. It is about how well a vintage classic does versus a very expensive modern speaker from one of Europe's leading most well known brands (in Europe). Would those speakers mention walk all over stacked Advents? Harry Pearson's reference for a long time. Speakers that he said in print that he regretted selling, after owning speakers costing as much as cars and houses. The Advent was known to have the lowest driver coloration and most natural sound. There was a local dealer who was nationally acclaimed, and he said anything you compare to the Advents sound obviously nasal. I was there on several occasions when someone brought in an acclaimed speaker and comparisons were made. The Advents have gone down in history as one of the most natural sounding speakers of all time. I'm sure comparing most modern speakers to them would result in the modern speakers usually sounding "Hifi" ish and not as musical and uncolored.
I have Polk LSiM 703’s and have tried regular and stacked configurations of the OLA’s, with a BSC circuit I think the Advents will become more transparent, but you’d be surprised how well the Advent holds up. 115 dollars wasn’t a tiny amount of money back then, for a stacked pair of Advent’s it’d be the equivalent of around $3,600 or $1700 for one pair in todays monopoly dollars
Expensive modern speakers have different materials like polycarbonates but why do others go back to paper cones? I bought a pair of Revel F36 for $2k. Aluminum tweeters and some kind of polycarbonate mids and woofers. Unfortunately, I had to buy them based on reviews. Awful ear bleedingly forward speakers. I thought they would have to loosen up and get better. They didn’t. I sold them and took a beating.
Personally of all the speakers with paper cone drivers that I've owned, none of them sounded particularly clean. Distortion is caused by driver flexing, and paper is a whole lot easier to flex that stronger, stiffer materials. One can't make generalizations about modern materials. Some say metal drivers are harsh and forward, but the most back distortionless midrange I ever heard was a metal driver. Each driver is unique unto itself and the expertise in its manufacture and how it is utilized.
Kevlar which in my experience always sounds very clean, is supposed to have a breakup frequency somewhere. Aerogel is a midrange material that is known for having a soft sound. Berrylium is often the material of choice in some driver manufacturers upper price range. Carbon Fiber is a good material. Often drivers are impregnated with these and other materials.