How much have speakers improved/changed over the years?

H

Hobbit

Senior Audioholic
...I must say I'm surprised that there isn't more of a consensus on the level of improvement in the sound itself and not just the build quality...
Not meaning to change the subject, but I can't believe the sound differences that can be heard between modern recordings. Some are absolutely amazing and others, in comparison, are just bad and sound like something from a day gone by.
 
GranteedEV

GranteedEV

Audioholic Ninja
Very interesting responses...I must say I'm surprised that there isn't more of a consensus on the level of improvement in the sound itself and not just the build quality. Over the decades, I guess I was expecting more of a trickle-down effect with the technology (as with bicycles, as someone mentioned...good analogy), such that a nice $1000/pr speaker from today would sound much better than a much more expensive speaker (for that time) from decades ago. Sounds like that is the case with build quality, but not necessarily for the sound itself. Perhaps the lesson here is that sound-competitive (vs today) speakers were available in the past, but they were harder to come by...so the overall sound quality across all speakers has jumped.
actually, the design of the crossover as mentioned in this thread is very importsnt in sound quality. You can have an optimized crossover on an entry level speaker like the EMP E55Ti which i imagine would cost multiples of its cost a decade or two earlier.
 
P

PENG

Audioholic Slumlord
Not meaning to change the subject, but I can't believe the sound differences that can be heard between modern recordings. Some are absolutely amazing and others, in comparison, are just bad and sound like something from a day gone by.
I actually found quality of rhe recording has more impact that even speakers, once you get pass a certain level/price point (yes, expensive does not always = better SQ but..) That's why I always look for high quality recordings. That is a totally different topic though..

I also think modern speakers generally sound better relative to their prices but I wonder how that compare to electronics (amps, media players, recording equipment etc.) excluding sound processors as that one is obvious, in relative (to prices) and absolute sense.
 
slipperybidness

slipperybidness

Audioholic Warlord
I actually found quality of rhe recording has more impact that even speakers, once you get pass a certain level/price point (yes, expensive does not always = better SQ but..) That's why I always look for high quality recordings. That is a totally different topic though..

I also think modern speakers generally sound better relative to their prices but I wonder how that compare to electronics (amps, media players, recording equipment etc.) excluding sound processors as that one is obvious, in relative (to prices) and absolute sense.
you simply cannot beat "garbage in / garbage out", that is why you must have a good recording to start with
 
Stanton

Stanton

Audioholics Contributing Writer
The biggest change I see in OVERALL speaker design today vs. a few decades ago (and I do own speakers that are a few decades old) is how much they push sub-woofers now in stead of an "all-in-one" design; almost like it's fashionable to have a sub-woofer. I think home theater (multi-speaker) configurations have driven this in part, but I still prefer a (well designed) full range speaker.

The only real technology advancements I've seen affecting speakers are in materials science, which is partly why tweeters have improved (and "hi-end" caps have proliferated).
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
The biggest change I see in OVERALL speaker design today vs. a few decades ago (and I do own speakers that are a few decades old) is how much they push sub-woofers now in stead of an "all-in-one" design; almost like it's fashionable to have a sub-woofer. I think home theater (multi-speaker) configurations have driven this in part, but I still prefer a (well designed) full range speaker.

The only real technology advancements I've seen affecting speakers are in materials science, which is partly why tweeters have improved (and "hi-end" caps have proliferated).
And there's a horsepower war in going on in commercial subs too. There are several choices now for subs that can put out 115db or more at 40Hz with low distortion. I didn't realize that jet engines had joined the orchestra. :)
 
L

LiveJazz

Junior Audioholic
Not meaning to change the subject, but I can't believe the sound differences that can be heard between modern recordings. Some are absolutely amazing and others, in comparison, are just bad and sound like something from a day gone by.
That's an interesting point, and makes me wonder if loudspeakers have generally improved so much recently, because the typical quality of recordings is making it matter more in recent years. Why devote much attention to hi-fi resolution in the 1960s when that resolution is just going to more accurately portray a flawed recording?
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
That's an interesting point, and makes me wonder if loudspeakers have generally improved so much recently, because the typical quality of recordings is making it matter more in recent years. Why devote much attention to hi-fi resolution in the 1960s when that resolution is just going to more accurately portray a flawed recording?
I don't think recordings have improved at all since the 1970s. Some of the best recordings I own were made in the 70s and 80s, on early digital technology. My favorite solo piano recording of all time is still Malcom Frager playing Chopin on Telarc, recorded in 1978.
 
Pyrrho

Pyrrho

Audioholic Ninja
That's an interesting point, and makes me wonder if loudspeakers have generally improved so much recently, because the typical quality of recordings is making it matter more in recent years. Why devote much attention to hi-fi resolution in the 1960s when that resolution is just going to more accurately portray a flawed recording?
There have been some really good recordings going back to the 1950's. For example, the RCA Living Stereo series generally is highly regarded (many now available on CD and some on SACD), though there is still tape hiss that you will hear if you turn up the volume to play them very loudly. But the sound quality is really quite good. Granted, it is not current state of the art, but most music that people listen to today isn't recorded in current state of the art sound anyway (or at least not released that way, often with severe dynamic compression on popular music). But the point is, there has been a good reason to try to get good speakers for a very long time, if one is listening to some of the better recordings available.

In fact, with reasoning from the quality of the sources that people use, speakers ought to be worse today than a decade or two ago, since so many people listen to poorly encoded MP3s and such. (Of course, some listen to well encoded MP3s, and so this does not apply to everyone listening to compressed music.) But that is not a good way to reason about speakers.

Also, speakers have been used to amplify live sounds at concerts for many decades, so even if all recordings were bad, there would still have been an incentive to make good speakers.
 
E

exlabdriver

Guest
My recent acquisition of a second Axiom EP400 sub for my tube-amp driven sats/subs - 2 X M2s + 2 X EP400s - now makes me smile even more when playing good quality recordings, both SACDs & CD.

Of note, the 2 SACDs that are most pleasing are TELARC's Spyro Gyra SACDs - 'Good to Go-Go' and 'Wrapped in a Dream' from the mid 2000s. These uptempo fusion jazz discs are magnificently recorded that results in articulate high end, full mid range with tremendous, quality bass extension - especially with the percussion instruments that are not recessed into the background like in many mixes today. My hardwood floors and couch vibrate nicely even at moderate levels. It is sad that TELARC is no more as they set some of the highest standards of digital recordings over the years. I'm proud to have quite a nice collection of their work.

I've owned many kinds of speakers since the 1960s. Typical of that period, one of my Sansui sets has a 15" woofer with multiple hi-tech drivers placed seemingly randomly on the front baffle and all controlled by 3-step 'balance control' switches, ha!. Mine are in pristine condition and I still use them today under my computer desk - see these beasts here:

Sansui PM-C200 / Loudspeakers - Sansui / Vintage Audio

Suffice it to say, I believe modern designs are generally more articulate and produce tighter, more accurate bass with smaller woofers and more aesthetically pleasing cabinets than those in the past.

TAM
 
slipperybidness

slipperybidness

Audioholic Warlord
I don't think recordings have improved at all since the 1970s. Some of the best recordings I own were made in the 70s and 80s, on early digital technology. My favorite solo piano recording of all time is still Malcom Frager playing Chopin on Telarc, recorded in 1978.
I tend to agree with you on this.

Now mastering is a whole different can of worms, and it could be a valid argument that it has gotten worse (on average) over the years.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Something smells fishy in this thread, and I'm still not buying the premise being presented here, that speakers of the past were somehow just as good. If someone told me to swap out my Salon 2s for any speaker produced in the 1990s, no less the 1980s or the 1970s, I'd say hell no, and if you touch them you can speak to my friend Mr. Winchester. If recordings are held constant, and they are, because I still listen to the ones made in the 70s and 80s, and amps haven't changed much, and I'm using a DAC with a design from 2002, then the only reasonable conclusion is that speakers, even very expensive speakers, are generally better than they were twenty-plus years ago. Not that a few speakers from the past weren't very good, and I mentioned some in an earlier post, but I'm still stepping back and thinking that I wouldn't trade the speaker market of today for one of anytime in the past. I can't say that I really miss any out-of-production speakers.
 
D

Dennis Murphy

Audioholic General
Something smells fishy in this thread, and I'm still not buying the premise being presented here, that speakers of the past were somehow just as good. If someone told me to swap out my Salon 2s for any speaker produced in the 1990s, no less the 1980s or the 1970s, I'd say hell no, and if you touch them you can speak to my friend Mr. Winchester. If recordings are held constant, and they are, because I still listen to the ones made in the 70s and 80s, and amps haven't changed much, and I'm using a DAC with a design from 2002, then the only reasonable conclusion is that speakers, even very expensive speakers, are generally better than they were twenty-plus years ago. Not that a few speakers from the past weren't very good, and I mentioned some in an earlier post, but I'm still stepping back and thinking that I wouldn't trade the speaker market of today for one of anytime in the past. I can't say that I really miss any out-of-production speakers.
Again, no one is saying there haven't been some improvements. In your case, it's probably in the area of controlled dispersion. That's no doubt a good thing, and it's probably worth 2 or 3 points in the accuracy sweepstakes. But I'm willing to bet that if you put your Salon 2's next to a pair of DIY speakers from 2002 (And I'll volunteer my MB0W1 3-ways or any of a number of designs done by John K), it would be a very close horse race. Things just haven't improved all that much.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Again, no one is saying there haven't been some improvements. In your case, it's probably in the area of controlled dispersion. That's no doubt a good thing, and it's probably worth 2 or 3 points in the accuracy sweepstakes. But I'm willing to bet that if you put your Salon 2's next to a pair of DIY speakers from 2002 (And I'll volunteer my MB0W1 3-ways or any of a number of designs done by John K), it would be a very close horse race. Things just haven't improved all that much.
From 2002? I'll buy that. The original Salon was designed in the 90s and it's pretty close to the Salon2 by many people's standards, some even prefer it to the Salon2 (though not me), I was discussing speakers from the 70s and 80s. When I compare a current B&W 802D, as an example, to even a very good speaker from fifteen years ago, like the Dunlavys, I am far more satisfied with the 802Ds than I ever remember being with the Dunlavy V. The bass in the Dunlavys was awesome, but the highs left something to be desired. The same with the B&W 801 Matrix, and a bunch of other supposedly SOTA speakers of the time. It's possible that my hearing has changed, making it easier to please me, but I doubt it. I'm probably grumpier and tougher to please than I ever was. I don't think the differences are all that subtle, but maybe that is the real issue here - semantics.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
From 2002? I'll buy that. The original Salon was designed in the 90s and it's pretty close to the Salon2 by many people's standards, some even prefer it to the Salon2 (though not me), I was discussing speakers from the 70s and 80s. When I compare a current B&W 802D, as an example, to even a very good speaker from fifteen years ago, like the Dunlavys, I am far more satisfied with the 802Ds than I ever remember being with the Dunlavy V. The bass in the Dunlavys was awesome, but the highs left something to be desired. The same with the B&W 801 Matrix, and a bunch of other supposedly SOTA speakers of the time. It's possible that my hearing has changed, making it easier to please me, but I doubt it. I'm probably grumpier and tougher to please than I ever was. I don't think the differences are all that subtle, but maybe that is the real issue here - semantics.
And cost. Salon 2's are very expensive by most people's reckoning. A B&W 801 from the 90's would be a fraction of the cost. I do agree with you that speaker design and components have improved in recent years but you can't compare speakers at the level of yours with lesser products from the past. I would say you have acquired speakers that speak to you. They reproduce music the way you want it reproduced. That's a great thing. It doesn't mean that all speakers from the past can't satisfy someone else or even be the cat's pajamas for someone else.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
And cost. Salon 2's are very expensive by most people's reckoning. A B&W 801 from the 90's would be a fraction of the cost. I do agree with you that speaker design and components have improved in recent years but you can't compare speakers at the level of yours with lesser products from the past. I would say you have acquired speakers that speak to you. They reproduce music the way you want it reproduced. That's a great thing. It doesn't mean that all speakers from the past can't satisfy someone else or even be the cat's pajamas for someone else.
Actually, the B&W 801 Matrix was a very expensive speaker in its day, and frankly beyond my means at the time they were new. The 801 was $4,500/pair in 1987, and are easily comparable to the B&W 802Ds of today, which retail for $15,000 per pair. The 800Ds, which are more comparable to the Salon2s, retail for $24,000. The Dunlavy SC-Vs I discussed were at least $15,000 per pair twelve years ago. Speakers that cost $5,000 per pair in the early to mid 1980s are in the same sort of price range relative to income as $15,000 per pair speakers are today, and discounts were much more difficult to come by in that time, if not impossible.

I agree with your contention that tastes vary, and a speaker that sounds awesome to one person may not please another. A friend of mine and I have that discussion regularly about the Salon2s and his preferred B&W 802Ds.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top