 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.193.89.119
I have been listening to a pair of JBL c-34's. I really didn't expect much but what I found is a lovely midrange that has great palpability. A dear friend is a reviewer for one of the largest online EZINEs. I get to listen to a lot of gear because manufacturers are constantly sending him new items to listen to. Anyway, to make a long story short I get the opportunity to listen to the c-34's and they sound great!! Ok they don't do everything perfectly but they really serve the music well. I could nit pick them but would rather listen to them. I can't say that with much of the high end gear that rolls into my friend's house! IMHO we really haven't progressed much in 60 years! Any other observations on this?
Follow Ups:
Is Your ears that old too.
If you were to hear some circa 1930 field coil speakers from Jensen, WE or Magnavox, you will realize that little has really changed, concerning speakers, for over 80 years ! Amps of the SET type mimic 1920s circuitry ! Amps of the Push Pull Triode tube type also mimic late 1920s and early 1930s amps.
The real changes have been to speaker materials, magnetic structures and Phono* Cartridge Pickups and turntables. Many audio transformers have been high fidelity since the late 1920s. Yes, nothing really new...
Respect the tried and true...
to discredit the advances in crossover design and enclosure alignments seems hard to justify. I've been building speakers for over 30 years and started with the classic text books on the subject that really didn't get much beyond standard filter theory. Later I advanced to some simple modeling spreadsheets that took into consideration inductance and now modern tools allow for modeling based upon actual measured driver impedance sweeps and FR response.
While I have a great deal of respect and admiration for all classic audio and have heard many very fine sounding vintage speakers, even many of the best vintage speakers have shortcomings that could have been easily addressed by modeling the system during development. Clearly the very best vintage designs are still some of the best sounding speakers ever developed, but those are few and far between and all can be directly attributable to designers who knew how to listen to music. And that still holds true with today’s speakers as well.
One thing I've always done before passing judgment on a speaker is making sure that I listen to a wide variety of music. I find that many speakers’ sound great playing things like Diana Krall or Dire Straits but then they sound quite challenged when I play some Shostakovich or Beethoven.
I briefly owned C40 Harkness a number of years ago. They sounded great playing The Curly Shuffle and Bob Marley, but were pretty much unlistenable with orchestral music.
Performance has really not changed. There are field coil tweeters that still compete with anything. There are full range vintage drivers that still compete with anything. There are 70-80 year old woofers that still compete.
Crossover parts, magnetic, suspension and cone materials may have changed. The end result is still the same. Musical playback in the home or studio, with realism in mind, has not changed. Ask the very affluent collectors why they went back to field coil speakers. They didn't do it for history; believe me. They truly believe the field coil stuff is inherently faster and more pleasing.
Now, I am not degrading anything new or newer, mind you. Plus, I'm not looking for a confrontation. The road to hifi in the home has many avenues. If you derive your musical enjoyment with more modern speakers, electrostatic or planar drivers, three, four or five way xovers, that is great; for you and for me. Nobody can take away our enjoyment with our own home listening systems; whatever components they may have. After all, this hobby/obsession is really about personal listening enjoyment. Thus, please ENJOY !
collecting vintage cars. But collectors of vintage cars recognize that a 60's Astin-Martin can't perform as well as a current Ferrari or A-M. That's not why they collect them. Of course, audio performance is far more subjective than auto performance, which is one thing that makes it so interesting.
I own and have owned way more vintage speakers than I care to remember, and agree that many are competitive with modern designs. And BTW, most top current designs are not 5-way. I really don't think we're too far off here in our opinions, more likely our listening tastes and goals are merely different.
BTW, have you heard any of the current big ticket field coil and full range drivers from the Far East? I would suspect that they sound pretty damn fine, but since I'm ultimately pretty cheap I'll never know unless I find a pair at a hamfest or a rummage sale.
Have you seen any of the Rullit items from Germany ? That guy is cool. He rebuilds in a fantastic way, using huge magnet structures and whatever good cones will fit. Allegedly, some of his offerings are considered state of the art ! Often, you can see some of his efforts on the bay.
The far eastern WE copies are almost as expensive as the originals. From the second-hand info of a now field coil "restorer" who heard some of them a decade and a half back on one of his Japan trips, he simply described them as delicious. For the prices, they better be great...
Oleg Rullit thief ! It is very dangerous to deal with this person. You risk losing your money!
Read more in the link on the website
I doubt that a 60's Aston Martin could beat a new Mustang or Camaro let alone a new Ferrari. I agree that there is vintage gear that sounds great and competes with the best of new gear, but to another person's ear with different priorities, that same equipment would sound bad and hopelessly outdated.
I have also read with interest about the new field coil drivers. However, like you I am also cheap, so I will stick with my hopelessly outdated and great sounding Spenodor BC-1's.
Dave
I doubt that a 60's Aston Martin could beat a new Mustang or Camaro
Why such an exotic comparison? Even if current pony cars weigh as much as a Cadillac.
I made the comparison because the original poster compared the Aston Martin with a new Ferrari. Of course the Camaro and Mustang cannot match the Aston Martin for coolness. My Casio tells time more accurately than a Rolex but I think few would prefer it on their wrist!
Dave
.
Here on the east, Lime Rock has a decent reputation. When they have the Vintage Grand Prix in September, they force the Minis and Lotus Elans to run with the Trans Am cars. This is because they outrun the Ferraris, aluminum bodied Alfas and Lotus Elites in the class they should run with. Are you amazed yet ? Seeing is believing...
The original mini is still a giant killer. When mine was nicely set up and I had the balls, I outran more than a few modern "supercars" on my twisty back roads. I clearly remember embarrassing a Subaru WRX STI who could not take the turns like the 1400 pound front wheel go cart. Minis set up right do not lean; they simply pivot. A standard WRX squeals and twists around turns when driven hard, while the real Mini tracks gracefully and quiet.
If it was more practical to run classic cars, there are a few candidates that still embarrass the modern pricey efforts. If money is no object, yes, modern is more "practical" but let us not forget that before there were million dollar Ferraris, an early '60s Ferrari racer easily beat the modern Ferrari efforts. BTW, Aston Martin was never a real race contender fro long; like Jaguar. They specialized in "chi chi foo foo" road cars. Ferrari expected that all of his pre-Fiat cars would be raced. However, why do we even talk about these unobtainium cars ? Any decent vintage 1275cc Mini will easily destroy any new ponycar on a twisty road..
An older brother used to slalom his TR-4A IRS back in the sixties. He said he could compete with the MGBs and Healeys, but not the Mini Coopers. With their ten inch wheels, they were like enclosed go-karts!
My '01 S2000 does pretty well around corners, too.
Have you checked out the new Fiats? I haven't driven one yet but they look like they have potential.
The original mini was an effective but primitive design. I also liked the Lotus Super 7.
Dave
I wish i could remember the source of this quotation. But it is a wise saying and since i don't have the original, this is a paraphrase.
Since we cannot hope to exactly reproduce a live performance in the home; the best we can do is create an aesthetic equivalent.
I fully agree with that, and once I read it and thought about it, it has guided my pursuits ever since. The issue, as I see it, is that it takes us out of the field of measurements and the objective; and into subjective judgements which are likely to vary quite a bit from person to person.
For example, the Advent and the JBL L100 sound very different. Yet, each was a really hot seller. The Advent was much better for classical music and the L100 was preferred for rock. It is argued by some that there are no rock speakers and classical speakers; just inaccurate speakers. However, if we go by the criteria of the aesthetic equivalent; the L100 does a much better job of bringing back one's memory of being at a live rock concert. Certainly the concert's PA system was not accurate, either. But the L100 does not bring one back to Symphony Hall nearly as well as the Advent does.
Jerry
...and the L100 was preferred for rock.
that the JBL 4310/4311s (with their peaky mid bass and tipped up lower treble) were widely used in mastering rock recordings. So, what do you think the result might be when you listen to such recordings on a neutral sounding speaker?
Corresponding thinness and lack of real top end! Ever heard a Led Zeppelin recording with any real bass? Nice air on the Zildjians? Parsons was likely using something else with DSOTM - or compensated.
I confess that the reason I first purchased the Zubin Mehta/LSO recording of Also Sprach Zarathustra in '73 or so was because the Advent literature referenced it as having real bass. I recently bought a William Orbit album called Toward the Unknown Region after hearing it on XM. One cut immediately put a smile on my face as I heard it for the first time. First octave bass!
I suspect, but don't know for a fact, that the recording engineers were using equalizers. My speakers (Spendor BC-1's) are not totally neutral, but they are neutral enough. Recordings from that era sound great! (For the most part!)
Dave
Recordings from that era sound great!
I cannot think of many rock recordings from the 70s which have any real low end. What would be a good example that you have?
Not super deep, but here are a few: the self-titled Santana (first album), all of the Jefferson Airplane, all of the Grateful Dead with the exception of the first (self-titled) album, Emerson Lake and Palmer, Yes, Pink Floyd, Frank Zappa (everything!), the and the Who (Qadraphenia, Who's next, Tommy). That is all I can think of off-hand, but I am sure I could come up with more. There are no 16 Hz organ notes but there is clean well balanced base. I am surprised you asked.
Dave
Oh my; I guess your speakers back then were bass deficient. Or, you didn't use the bass control...(LOL)
There are many examples of rock with good bass definition. Let's start with Yes. Their "The Yes Album" has a few impressive cuts. Have you heard Starship Trooper ? How about the "After Bathing At Baxters" LP by Jefferson Airplane ? Jack Cassady was THE bass player. You want ballsy bass ? Try the ELP first album.
I could probably fill the page; but I'd rather go listen to some classics...
I posted above before I read you post. We are in agreement about a lot of music. I suspect we would like each other’s collection. I am also a big fan of Hot Tuna.
Dave
I guess your speakers back then were bass deficient. Or, you didn't use the bass control...(LOL)
Double Advents do pretty well, both then and now. An equalizer can only increase the quantity of that which is there. You cannot create missing fundamentals. Which is why I've never liked the sonic result of using either bass or loudness controls.
There are many examples of rock with good bass definition.
We're not talking about the same thing. When I refer to "real low end", I'm thinking first octave content, not "definition".
Have you heard Starship Trooper ?
I bought my first Yes album in 1972 and know "Starship Trooper" well. Before responding, I listened to it again. There's great definition on Squire's unique open fret style, but it has zero deep bass.
Try the ELP first album.
That is a notable exception on the "The Three Fates" and "Tank" cuts. Rick Wakeman's Six Wives of Henry VIII also has some low bass with the pipe organ content. It remains a rarity to find first octave bass on 70s era rock recordings.
- We're not talking about the same thing. When I refer to "real low end", I'm thinking first octave content, not "definition".
Well of course you don't have "real low end". Even many of my classical records don't have that. This is not because of flaws in the monitors; it is because of marketing considerations. You records are not going to sell well if you blow up the stereo's of most of you target audience. Even Telarc had to dumb-down their 1812! I remember when all the people who where blowing up their stereo's with "Brothers in Arms".
I haven't played "Rick Wakeman's Six Wives of Henry VIII" in ages. I should spin it this weekend. I have a WLP of "Fragile". The base is not super deep, but is sure is nice!
Dave
I've said this before; but it probably bears repeating. In a sense, it's a little like the Egyptian pyramids. People had a hard time imagining how they built the pyramids without cranes and winches and modern equipment; so they invoke all kinds of nonsense about how they were built. They can't seem to imagine that the Egyptians of the time were as smart as we are and had well developed methods that did not need cranes and diesel engines.
So here we are in the 21st century with wonderful computer based tools and wonderful new materials, and we can't seem to understand how anybody could design good sounding speakers with the "primitive" tools and materials of the 50's and 60's.
Well, they were as smart as we are, good instrumentation microphones were available then, 15 and 30 IPS tapes were available as source material, the live reference was the same as today (Ok, they didn't have rap), and human hearing has not evolved noticeably in the last 50 years. Materials were not as advanced as today; but cellulose is still one of the better materials for speaker cones. The process was a lot slower without PC based software; but for the patient and painstaking designers; the results could be very good.
The criteria for placing the listener in row M in a concert hall has not changed. Although it seems that a lot of today's audiophiles want to be on stage or at least in row A.
Remember that AR was running Live Vs Recorded demos in the 60's and observers were not able to tell when the musicians stopped and the recording started using stock AR speakers. Yes, the tapes were specially prepared, and EQ was used; but a lot of the properties touted for modern speakers cannot be EQ'd into older ones, and that's especially true given the electronics technology of the 60's.
I will agree that tweeters are better than ever. However, it still remains for the designers to use them well in a system design. I also have issues with the use of woofer and midrange cones with exotic materials and little internal damping, as this leads to severe breakup modes and the necessity of higher order filters in the crossover and even the use of notch filters to control the breakup products. Done badly these complex filters will degrade the sound.
Jerry
Wayne Henderson, of Rugby, Virginia, builds guitars by hand, compared to Taylor Guitars who use Fadal machines. Both build some of the finest examples of guitars that are built today and have ever been made, for that matter. The majority of Wayne's tooling used is a 4 inch pocket knife compared to Taylor's use of expensive automated CNC equipment. Some say that Wayne is in the dark ages and Taylor is the best manufacturer of guitars on the planet today. Pick up either guitar and you can't find fault in them. In this case the old technology allows one guitar to be made over a period of months whereas Taylor makes an average of 500 plus per day. Neither is inherently better. I think that execution is what matters. The execution of the designer of the vintage speaker that stands up today is what allows these designs to stand up today. Some of the old designs are based on textbook designs and many are not, and we should not presume that these old designs are not advanced beyond what a hobbyist can do. Just because they didn't use computers and modeling back then it does not mean that these people were limited in their expertise at designing a good loudspeaker.
Exactly my point. I can remember seeing a picture of a listening room at a speaker company back in the late 60's. It was set up like a living room, with speakers on one wall and across from them was a sofa and a coffee table. And on the table was a switch box connected to the speakers by a long snake. It was the crossover for the speakers and they could change components and even the schematic while listening. It's a far cry from the computer simulations that can be done today; but with some theory, some insights, some cleverness, and some patience it would get you there.
By the way, in 2010 we were in Memphis and visited the Gibson hollow body electric guitar plant. They produce only 45 a week, and although they have some machinery, I was surprised at how much hand labor and testing went into one. My daughter has a Taylor.
Jerry
I've never heard a pair of JBLs that I cared for. I not saying I've heard all of them but the ones I heard all had the same basic house sound. And I'll avoid my description of that since if will only inflame the JBL folks.
I think that if anything has progressed over the last 60 years, speakers have. There is a much better understanding as to what parameters effect what type of sound qualities and the days of build and try have been replaced by the use of computers and a bunch of formulas. It still requires someone who knows what they are doing but the knowledge base is definately deep and more commonly known.
It benefits all of us that speakers are so much better understood now. Whether you like the more accurate speakers is up to you. I don't like them all but I have to admit that there are substantially more great speakers now than in any past decade. And I do realize that that is also a flame inviter but this one is easier to look into.
The old days of nasal sounding box speakers are greatfully past and what caused dynamic drivers to suck are now designed out of newer drivers. For the record I don't care for box speakers, mostly due to the old bad days of boxey sounding crap, but I readily surrender that newer speakers are distinctly less boxey sounding and many more of them sound as transparent and boxless as some of the best old designs.
Now to defend myself, I am not saying there were never any good vintage designs. What I am saying is that due to engineering understanding the magical few are now much more common. Maybe thats not a good thing but a lot of very inexpensive box speakers perform awfully well. Something has to be going right.
Ed
We don't shush around here!
Life is analog...digital is just samples thereof
When I was in college studying music, one of the big classrooms had a pair of JBL L-100s mounted on the wall for whenever recordings needed to be played in class. I found them rather on the strident side. (It didn't help that one of my professors, a fabulous teacher and musicologist, couldn't handle an LP without dropping the needle, dragging the tonearm across the record, and so on.... But he knew his stuff, and loved teaching!)
My own preference is for a less forward midrange. I've been happy with my ancient Dynaco A25-XLs; one of them is the center channel in my surround system, along with Energy towers with powered woofers (model number escapes me right now) for the mains. Surrounds are my trusty old Dynaco A-10s.
That's not to say that I don't LOVE my basement full of old vintage speakers, but there are WAY more acceptable reasonably priced speaker options now than we've ever had before. And when I do REAL serious listening, I always fire up my Shahinian Diapasons. The Maggies are pretty good too.
I personally think electronics have advanced much less than speakers over the past 3 or 4 decades.
The thing that seems to have advanced in electronics is the quality of passive components and our knowledge of how the choice of those passive parts effect the sound. There are many more active parts available also but a well designed circuit seems to stand the test of time.Just changing a few coupling caps on an old amp can have a dramatic effect on its sound. Older coupling caps are no where near as transparent as newer metalized film caps. I have an Adcom GFA-555II power amp that had a fairly nice Roderstein input coupling cap at the input to each channel.
These were pretty good caps for their day but times have brought about much better caps and I replaced those caps (the only coupling caps in the circuit) with a pair of Auricaps. The change in the sound of that amp was very easy to tell. An amp that was pretty good to start with became a good bit better and now sounds like an amp without any coupling caps...or pretty damm close to it.
I am somewhere in the middle of recapping all of my older gear and replacing coupling caps seems to always have the same effect. Fortunately I have yet to find a piece where the replacement of the coupling cap made the sound worse. I suppose that is possible but that would indicate the gear is malfunctioning or sounds crappy when you remove bad sounding caps out of the signal path.
I am rattling on so I'll sign off now.
Have a good day,
Ed
We don't shush around here!
Life is analog...digital is just samples thereof
Edits: 04/25/12
Ed,
I would agree with you on the JBL's that I heard that are later than the late 50's to very early 60's could be grating if not system matched carefully. The very early 50's JBL seemed to sound quite a bit different than the later West Coast Sound JBL. I used to have the old style Hartsfields and now have heard the early C-34's. It seemed like JBL at this time concentrated on the beauty of the midrange. In fact, the Hartsfields used to to remind me of Quad ESL's on steriods. They lacked deep bass or much high treble response. Some people even added a tweeter to the Hartsfields. It has been 13 years since I owned the Hartsfields but would love to hear a pair again. Sonic memory is a very fragile thing. Anyway these speakers sound quite different than the later JBL speakers.
would you say the apogee are better than the JBLs or just different?
i think the most exciting time in speaker design was probably the 1970's. some really innovative stuff back then.
i'd still throw my Yamaha NS-1000Ms against a good portion of modern hi-fi speakers. not saying they would win, but they would certainly compete.
and to think the NS-1000M are pretty common for japanese hi-fi speakers. man what i wouldn't give to have a pair of pioneer S-955! suspended beryllium dome mids, and a TAD beryllium RIBBON TWEETERS!
http://www.thevintageknob.org/pioneer-CS-955.html
see ya,
Robby
Robby, I would definitely say they are just different. Every speaker has its strengths. The Apogees are great speakers. I was expecting nothing out of the Jbl' speakers and I was surprised how good they were. Bob
i have a pristine pair of jbl-d-123 widerange drivers in modest acousticraft cabinets. midrange is excellent and i think they would sound better in a better enclosure. any suggestions....
I would recommend you do a search on JBL D123. I think it was this forum but it might have been High Efficiency. Someone posted a detailed plan for a system around a D123 and a tweeter. It was very interesting and looked feasible too.
Dave
I heard the Classic Audio Repo versions of the Hartsfields at a show in Ohio years ago. Ill never forget it. They were jamming Talking Heads stop making sense, at ear bleeding levels. I wanna say they were driving em with DeHavland 845 tube amps. Sounded really amazing. I was only in the room for a few mins. Clearly not long enough, not concentrated enough for serious recollection. But what I heard was great! Bass was there. But again, not long eval...
What do you think of the C34's bass?
I've been collecting allot of vintage stuff. Have 130As LE-14 175 drivers and mashers. So on... Im always wondering what to sell on to and what to keep. Obviously also how to use it all. Only so much time and money to sink into projects.
Thanks for the heart warming (for me) story. Own and love both JBL 4430 speakers, mains for now. And a pair of JBL 240Ti I need to refoam and wish to keep and love / use. Considering keeping a pair of HPM-100s I stumbled on but would love to have the Xovers reworked to a more flat response. For whatever reason I feel they have great potential.
Again great story
Dave
it was available in at least three variations;
- a D130 15" woofer run full range
- systen 030 which had a D130 and an 075 bullet tweeter, crossed @ 2600
- system 001 with a 130A 15" woofer and a 175 1" compression driver on the "potato masher" horn, crossed @ 1200
much better with a T-350 on top!
I will need to open up the cabinets. Do you know how to take off the front grills of these speakers?
There are different cabinet variants also. If yours doesn't have the screw-on back you can release the grill cloth stretcher from the bottom of the cabinets and gain access that way. That probably isn't necessary though if you use a flashlight and just take a look through the grill cloth.
W
The c-34's are from different periods. The early one has the "L" within the logo. You can clearly see the 15 inch driver and the tweeter through the grill cloth. The newer of the speakers has JBL Sigmature on the grill cloth. I cannot see through the grill cloth on this version. Bob
In all fairness, I think the state of the art HAS progressed in terms of minimization of diffraction/optimization of point source radiation - and thus "imaging", "soundstage", and that sort of thing... but in terms of tone and that (as you aptly put it) palpable sense of 'realness'/flesh and blood in reproduced music - the boys at Western Electric and their progeny sussed that out pretty well in the 1930s if not slightly before.
The industry's also learned to make drivers with excellent performance characteristics accross fairly (to very) narrow bandwidths and to compensate for the drivers' narrow optimal bandwidth with very sophisticated crossover designs - I don't consider this approach an improvement when judged by ears vs. measuring instruments... but de gustibus non est disputandum, as they say.
FWIW, I prefer the Altec "sound" to the JBL's (the latter are too aggressive for me under most circumstances)... but I do know what you mean and I do concur.
all the best,
mrh
What was the load?
Not quite sure what you are asking but guessing you mean amplification. I used an Audio research D-76 amplifier. Also using a VTL Ultimate Preamp.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
