are new speakers better than the old ones

[jahman]

hi gentlemen, first i make my living as television repairman and run sound on the side.

we've watched television quality deteriorate to the point now they are all junk. i was just wandering if the new speakers have had the same fate. does the sr jbl speakers sound as good or better than the new srx, is nio better than ceramic magnets, is rail switch mode power supplies as good as having large transformers? weight reduction is great how much corners did cut. just wandering!

[dboomer]

I must admit that the well-built mechanics of the past hold a place in my heart ... but ...

 

 

It would be hard to say for everything, but I suspect that comparing equivalent speaker products now and then that you get more for your money with new than with old. The ability on engineers to cut corners (or simply eliminate the unnecessary) using modern computer models allows for this change.

 

I just bought a $100 Shark vacuum cleaner that far outperforms any Kirby (that used to cost $400 in 1970 money which would be abut $2400 in 2011 money) I've ever owned. Yea .. it's a lot of plastic, but it does a much better job of it compared to all that machined metal. My cheesy $250 Vizio has a way better picture than any Sony Trinitron I ever owned (which may have cost 5x).

[jahman]

dboomer that sony would outlast the vizio four to one. does the jbl sr built better than the srx?

[Miko Man]

"Better built?" It depends on what you are doing. In a fixed installation, a weight savings (for the same durability) doesn't matter too much. Touring or gigging, size and weight make a difference in labor and transportation costs. Neo magnets cost more than old-school magnets, but they don't necessarily sound better or worse than traditional materials.

 

I don't believe that "old school" inherently sounds better or worse than "new school"; I would rather carry the newer items from venue to venue, however. It is probably easier for a noob use the new stuff well ( because of internal DSP), but that doesn't mean that the old skool stuff just always sucks, either. Recone kits are typically going to be available for quality speakers from most reputable vendor. YMMY. Mark C.

[agedhorse]

The SR and SRX are of comparable quality, with maybe an edge to the SRX for cabinet work and finish. Drivers are different but of equal quality. Performance-wise, the SRX is a clear winner, size and weight-wise, the SRX is a clear winner.

[twostone]

Wow you guys still exist just kidding I used to install TV antennas back in the day for TV shop, but that got replaced by cable, satellite disk, and fiber optics.

I agree 100% that non HD shows on a HD TV blows chunks, but anyway back on topic. I know with this newer active stuff I don't need a PHD to dial in a FOH mix that doesn't chase off a crowd and I'm not much of a sound tech so it's made it easier for me a non sound tech guy to achieve my mission.

[WynnD]

My take is that the sound quality of the top end stuff isn't much different. What is different is smaller size, lighter weight and higher maximum safe splash levels. Those are all better now than 40 years ago. Signal processing is much better today as are the tools for setting a system up and reducing or eliminating feedback. As well as 40 years ago, there weren't any subwoofers. Least not at any of the concerts that I attended. I think that disco created the need for sub-woofers. I really don't like disco, so sub-woofers don't hold much fascination for me.

[Bobby1Note]

 

My take is that the sound quality of the top end stuff isn't much different. What is different is smaller size, lighter weight and higher maximum safe splash levels. Those are all better now than 40 years ago. Signal processing is much better today as are the tools for setting a system up and reducing or eliminating feedback. As well as 40 years ago, there weren't any subwoofers. Least not at any of the concerts that I attended. I think that disco created the need for sub-woofers. I really don't like disco, so sub-woofers don't hold much fascination for me.

 

 

Although it wasn't necessarily considered a "sub"-woofer, the ElectroVoice Patrician 800 loudspeaker (late 60's audiophile speaker) had a 30" Hartley woofer. There was also the Altec-Lansing A7 Voice-of-the-Theater loudspeaker, and both of those pre-dated Disco by quite a few years.

[dboomer]

 

dboomer that sony would outlast the vizio four to one.

 

 

Possibly. But even if it lasts another decade there is no one broadcasting to analog TV so it's dead now. So if the vizio only lasts a quarter of the time and the technology keeps changing I'll be able to buy 3 more future models and still have spent the same money. There's no easy answer.

 

Speakers can last for a long time. I used the same Meyer system for over 25 years ... and the current owner is still using them. But new manufacturing methods, new glues and new machining technologies are building equal or better performing speaker components for lower prices. Also implementation as in crossovers (especially if you consider DSP), box design and tuning.

 

An A-7 was a marvel in it's time ( I owned about a dozen of them) and there are probably a bunch still in operation. But they don't sound as good as newer designs plus they are huge and heavy.

[Flogger59]

Although it wasn't necessarily considered a "sub"-woofer, the ElectroVoice Patrician 800 loudspeaker (late 60's audiophile speaker) had a 30" Hartley woofer. There was also the Altec-Lansing A7 Voice-of-the-Theater loudspeaker, and both of those pre-dated Disco by quite a few years.

 

This A7? Subwoofer? With a low end cutoff of maybe 100hz?

[agedhorse]

A7 -3dB cutoff with stock drivers and no DSP was about 65Hz, hardly a subwoofer.

 

There are things that can improve the preformance a bit with different (but pretty specific drivers), DSP and such that can extend the LF point down about another 1/3 octave and increase power handling... BUT that's still a heavy, huge box.

[Bobby1Note]

This A7? Subwoofer? With a low end cutoff of maybe 100hz?

 

I wasn't referring to the A7 as a "subwoofer",,, just a loud and old speaker.

 

A buddy of mine, had four A7's (2 per side), which he used for his home-theater set-up, back in the late 80's. His screen was 12' diagonal, and he used one of those old coffee-table style RGB projectors. It looked awful, and sounded even worse. I think the excess volume may have caused him to have a few loose screws,,,, but then,,,,, they may have been loose already,,,, for him to go with a system like that.

[Dogoth]

Overall I'd say new technology wins. There has always been good audio but it used to cost an arm and a leg (and a back as well when you had to move it). The older JBL SR speakers sound great but I have to admit that the SRX series sounds as good and will get louder per given box size (never mind that they only weigh 30% as much). It's true that quality speakers (if driven properly) will last a long time so I guess the Jury is still out about longevity. I would say that the build quality and "fit & finish" of the SRX line is superb. I think a lot of it comes down to computer modeling and new materials technology.

 

As far as power amplifiers go, I personaly believe the old Crown Macro-tech is a slightly better sub amp than their new top of the line amps (the I-tech) but not by enough to justify moving them around (even once - to install them). I can only make this statment as a personal opinion and have no real specs to back it up. Then take a look at power consumption and it's a no brainer as to what to buy. Once again built quality appears excellent.

 

There is some classic audio gear that became famous for it's specific coloration and therefore is sought after: Neumann u87, U67 & U47 mics, API & Tab/Telefunkin mic preamps, Fairchild, Urei & Teletronics LA2A compressors to name a few but those were very expensive pieces in their day (and made of unobtanium today). In reality modern designed circuits are much quieter, cleaner, wider in both bandwidth and dynamic range than their perdecesors but music isn't clinical and sound quality is somewhat subjective. I wouldn't mind owning a few of these classics but most day to day work, I'll do on a digital board (not a cheap one) because it's reliable and consistant.

 

That's my .02 and thanks for the trip down memory lane :-)

 

cheers

[Flogger59]

I wasn't referring to the A7 as a "subwoofer",,, just a loud and old speaker. A buddy of mine, had four A7's (2 per side), which he used for his home-theater set-up, back in the late 80's. His screen was 12' diagonal, and he used one of those old coffee-table style RGB projectors. It looked awful, and sounded even worse. I think the excess volume may have caused him to have a few loose screws,,,, but then,,,,, they may have been loose already,,,, for him to go with a system like that.

 

In some versions of the Pennebaker movie of Monterey there's a scene where David Crosby is watching the crew set up 4 A7's a side. He turns to the camera wide eyed saying "This is gonna sound!"

[mrcpro]

 

I think that disco created the need for sub-woofers. I really don't like disco, so sub-woofers don't hold much fascination for me.

 

I think it was originally the need to get a good kick sound, not disco. I'll never forget the night that I heard my first club band with a mic'ed kick running through W bins. I don't remember the name of the band or even the name of the club anymore (it was in Vancouver BC), but I remember the night like it was yesterday.

 

It was a life transforming experience. They had the sound and we didn't.

[OneEng]

New speakers are better than old speakers by quite a bit IMHO. This is true throughout the price spectrum; however, it is most apparent in the low and MI gear level. Let me explain...

 

In the past, if you had the money, knowledge, and trucks to haul it, you could put together a speaker system that sounded as good as pretty much anything out there today. Unfortunately, most people didn't have that great combination available to them..... particularly the money part since it would have cost tens of thousands of dollars to create such a system.

 

Today, for bands that play to smaller audiences (say

 

The cheep low end stuff is also better; however, the stuff I have noticed the most is the MI gear.

 

The high end is better as well. Certainly the SRX series are lighter, louder, and better sounding than the SR series.... but as far as the sound goes, perhaps not that much better. I think the emphasis in the high end is in smaller and lighter (as well as less expensive to some extent).