Older VS Newer Speakers.

[ski2xblack]

I'll say one thing about this hobby. People don't teach people how to listen. Everything get's wrapped up like a wine bottle label. The biz in general needs a master musician/recording engineer Yoda who isn't sponsored to evangelize and teach what sounds good. Too many GR_Research types that make it all sour. Not to detract from my original post. Gene does a great job, but I can only guess from a measurement.

Regarding "how to listen," if you find yourself conducting the phantom orchestra, wailing on air guitar, pounding the imaginary drum kit, or otherwise headbanging like a rock star and dancing loke a fool, you are listening correctly. The music should move you, inspire you.

As for old vs. new, If you can't get ears on a specific potential contender, post it here and maybe someone has direct experience can chip in. Alas, I have no experience with the NT1 vs. 9NT, but if of similar vintage and production run, I would guess the 9's would bring more extension and dynamic range than the NT1's. If the 1's get your toes tapping, you would also probably like their larger brothers.

 

[mono-bloc]

Rise of non audiophiles and soundbars probably put them out of business

I know exactly what you mean. We have a large chain store called JB HiFi, which is in just about every shopping complex. Years ago they carried most beginner and entry level AVR's, CD Players and speakers. Now it's flat screen TV's and soundbars

 

[Kingnoob]

I know exactly what you mean. We have a large chain store called JB HiFi, which is in just about every shopping complex. Years ago they carried most beginner and entry level AVR's, CD Players and speakers. Now it's flat screen TV's and soundbars

Yeah just selling what’s easy to move , they probably think soundbars are better than audio systems, or just can’t sell speakers due to waf. Despite todays slim speakers, most consumers are uneducated, I’ll informed on the topic. They see a bix ugly box!!!
regular tv speakers hurt my ears more so than 5”+ ones .
In this age it seems tv speakers keep getting worse , while home audio crumbles .

 

[lovinthehd]

I know exactly what you mean. We have a large chain store called JB HiFi, which is in just about every shopping complex. Years ago they carried most beginner and entry level AVR's, CD Players and speakers. Now it's flat screen TV's and soundbars

You and Kingnoob being exactly on the same page is a definite possibility.

 

[MrBoat]

I have older speakers and newer from 1978 to 2017. The biggest improvement IME, has been the noticeably better audible performance from budget speakers. 40 years ago, there really were no bargains either in home, or car audio. Bargain speakers back then were very much Lo-Fi and often unlistenable for all but low volume background music at best. Some would blow the first time you floored the volume, or came with so much built-in, mechanical distortion, that they may as well been blown.

These days, even the $2-300 all-in-one shelf systems like that from RCA, Sony, Phillips etc., while not audiophile grade, are actually acceptable and certainly better than the boom-boxes of the past. Now, a couple hundred bucks will buy a couple hundred portable watts, and 8" 3-way separate speakers that at least show up to jam without blowing out and with plenty of somewhat clean bass.

Now I have a pair of powered JBL LSR305 I use at work. They're not even located well, yet they stop me in my tracks sometimes with the things that they do well. I paid $200 for them on sale a few years ago.

One major difference is the tech age's computer simulation and controlled manufacturing and the ability to design without a mountain of failed prototypes or a whole team of engineers. Computers really don't know how to design bad speakers on their own. It ends up now being pretty much up to the marketers on how much they allow the computers to give us for our money, with some differences really being how many exotic materials they include, or what level of cabinet finish we get.

As much as I have tried to take tech at their word, I still like displacement of large drivers. As soon as I hear, "they sound so much bigger than they are," I run the other way, because who says that, either doesn't listen as loudly as I do, is kind of new to all of this, or their wooman won't let them have big speakers so they don't want anyone else to have them either.

 

[Kingnoob]

I have older speakers and newer from 1978 to 2017. The biggest improvement IME, has been the noticeably better audible performance from budget speakers. 40 years ago, there really were no bargains either in home, or car audio. Bargain speakers back then were very much Lo-Fi and often unlistenable for all but low volume background music at best. Some would blow the first time you floored the volume, or came with so much built-in, mechanical distortion, that they may as well been blown.

These days, even the $2-300 all-in-one shelf systems like that from RCA, Sony, Phillips etc., while not audiophile grade, are actually acceptable and certainly better than the boom-boxes of the past. Now, a couple hundred bucks will buy a couple hundred portable watts, and 8" 3-way separate speakers that at least show up to jam without blowing out and with plenty of somewhat clean bass.

Now I have a pair of powered JBL LSR305 I use at work. They're not even located well, yet they stop me in my tracks sometimes with the things that they do well. I paid $200 for them on sale a few years ago.

One major difference is the tech age's computer simulation and controlled manufacturing and the ability to design without a mountain of failed prototypes or a whole team of engineers. Computers really don't know how to design bad speakers on their own. It ends up now being pretty much up to the marketers on how much they allow the computers to give us for our money, with some differences really being how many exotic materials they include, or what level of cabinet finish we get.

As much as I have tried to take tech at their word, I still like displacement of large drivers. As soon as I hear, "they sound so much bigger than they are," I run the other way, because who says that, either doesn't listen as loudly as I do, is kind of new to all of this, or their wooman won't let them have big speakers so they don't want anyone else to have them either.

Can’t tell you how many people I’ve heard fooled by the Bose cubes, when I was like hmmm? we’res the bass and those modules struggled I cranked volume up at circuit city so bloated

 

[MrBoat]

Can’t tell you how many people I’ve heard fooled by the Bose cubes, when I was like hmmm? we’res the bass and those modules struggled I cranked volume up at circuit city so bloated

Never fell into the Bose world. My mom had a wave radio by them and that was about as close as I got to the brand, and she got that long after I moved on and out.

I'm more like the WWE of audio. I liked the big brand rack systems for hard core jamming and rock and roll sessions. I'd still be listening on my Sanyo-ized 150 watt Fisher system from the '80s if it hadn't finally worn out. Regardless of it's audiophile shortcomings, it handled all of the mainstream music rather perfectly, IMO. Letting the bar get set higher than that after the fact, was sort of a costly mistake in hindsight. I flogged that old Fisher system for 25 years and never once wished it was better. Not until all the faders started getting dirty and cleaning only lasting a year or so between treatments. Talk about bang for the buck.

 

[highfigh]

I'll say one thing about this hobby. People don't teach people how to listen. Everything get's wrapped up like a wine bottle label. The biz in general needs a master musician/recording engineer Yoda who isn't sponsored to evangelize and teach what sounds good. Too many GR_Research types that make it all sour. Not to detract from my original post. Gene does a great job, but I can only guess from a measurement.

And, how would you teach someone how to listen? What words would you use that wouldn't instill some of your biases?

There's a saying which has been mis-attributed to many people- 'Talking about music is like dancing about architecture' and it could easily be used to describe sound, which would cause problems because people understand words differently. This is one of the reasons people (often, writers) come up with the terminology and adjectives used to describe sound as 'chocolaty', 'velvety', 'smooth', etc. Also, peoples' hearing isn't exactly the same, so it's easily possible for someone to tell another person to listen for something they just can't hear. It's possible to teach someone how to listen, but it's much more difficult to do that in writing because there's no interaction and when someone says "listen to this instrument in this passage", it's easy to replay it several times when the people are in the same place and using the same system.

 

[highfigh]

Never fell into the Bose world. My mom had a wave radio by them and that was about as close as I got to the brand, and she got that long after I moved on and out.

I'm more like the WWE of audio. I liked the big brand rack systems for hard core jamming and rock and roll sessions. I'd still be listening on my Sanyo-ized 150 watt Fisher system from the '80s if it hadn't finally worn out. Regardless of it's audiophile shortcomings, it handled all of the mainstream music rather perfectly, IMO. Letting the bar get set higher than that after the fact, was sort of a costly mistake in hindsight. I flogged that old Fisher system for 25 years and never once wished it was better. Not until all the faders started getting dirty and cleaning only lasting a year or so between treatments. Talk about bang for the buck.

Anything can sound good for some kind of sounds- it's not always easy to find the right match and it's often not worth the effort, but it's true. I have heard Bose sound OK, but it was usually for voices and instruments with limited range.

 

[MrBoat]

We learned to listen as a rather large group.

Group music playback was a fad when/where I was growing up. We made rounds to each others houses with new albums as they became available to those who had the better stereo systems. Pink Floyd Animals had me getting the red carpet treatment at friends houses for two weeks or more. Same with Boston's and Van Halen's debut albums. The word would get out via landline and WOM and before you knew it, 15 people had fallen in over the course of a weekend. There was always deep analytical discussion based on fandom and live show experiences and we knew our stuff.

A select few could EQ to unanimous agreement as to whether it helped, or hindered. Someone would point out that a certain player's contributions were more out front than others like with the guitars and vocals vs. bass. Someone would tweak something or move a speaker to noticeable improvement and most of us would get it.

My eldest brother got me started in higher fidelity and power. Even though we did not hang out in the same crowds, our listening was, and still is comparable to what we always listened for. This was the most universally accepted way to listen (across genres, even) pretty much everywhere I had been. I suppose it was in fact, the most obvious way to make things sound good.

I was fortunate to grow up when music listening was much more communal. A great part of what cemented me in the hobby. So it is safe to say I had a lot of ways to learn to listen. Much more agreeable than now, for sure.