• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join free Log in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Major milestones in Speaker Technology.

#102
I don't know whether its a milestone but I have always liked the beam steering solution to a dispersion problem provided by the Renkus-Heinz digitally steerable line arrays, what they call the ([Invalid or Expired Link Removed]) system.
 
#103
You'd be hard pressed to find a speaker that was more groundbreaking than the Altec "Voice of the Theater" series, the most common being the A7, which was introduced in the early 1950's. It was the result of an incredible number of engineering hours by an incredible staff of engineers, and it may be unmatched in that regard. It was the worldwide standard for movie theaters, and it was probably the most common P.A. speaker through the 60's and you still saw them through the early and mid 70's. It's my understanding many movie theaters still use the larger A4's today. You'll see studio shots from the 50's with A7's as control room monitors, and they were a favorite of many audiophiles for hi-fi. The horn was usually mounted on top of the cabinet like in the picture below, but it could also be mounted inside the cabinet, making it a little more road-worthy, but with a loss in bass response. With its hybrid bass horn/bass reflex design, it had a response of 35 - 20k, which in the early 1950's was unheard of, considering its relatively small size and outstanding efficiency. Altec has re-issued them at around $4000/pair.
A7.gif
 
#104
The first speaker cabinet that I built was a Voice of the Theater when I was 16. Had two of them in my 12 x 12 ft. bedroom.

Now this one is a home hifi speaker but to me the biggest breakthrough was the Quad Electrostatic in the 50's. From 100hz to 10khz many still think it's the best speaker ever made.

By the way--just played a very telling gig with the Big E. I'll report later.
 
#105
Mike Arnopol said:
The first speaker cabinet that I built was a Voice of the Theater when I was 16. Had two of them in my 12 x 12 ft. bedroom.

Now this one is a home hifi speaker but to me the biggest breakthrough was the Quad Electrostatic in the 50's. From 100hz to 10khz many still think it's the best speaker ever made.

By the way--just played a very telling gig with the Big E. I'll report later.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the esoteric hi-fi shop I worked in early-mid 70's had a pair of the Quads, Klipschorns, Altec A7's and 604E's, Bosendorfer's eyc. The Quad's were beautifully transparent, but turned out they had a very limited dynamic range.
 
#107
Mike Arnopol said:
The first speaker cabinet that I built was a Voice of the Theater when I was 16. Had two of them in my 12 x 12 ft. bedroom.

Now this one is a home hifi speaker but to me the biggest breakthrough was the Quad Electrostatic in the 50's. From 100hz to 10khz many still think it's the best speaker ever made.

By the way--just played a very telling gig with the Big E. I'll report later.
Click to expand...

I can think of one, and only one speaker I would put up against the Quad- the Ohm F. A single speaker called a Walsh Driver, cone-shaped and omni-directional, that transmitted the signal from the top to the bottom of the speaker. No crossover, perfectly time-aligned and one of the only speakers that can accurately reproduce a square wave. It also radiated the sound 360 degrees.

They weren't very efficient, and needed about 300 Watts to drive them and 350 to blow them

There's only one company in the world that I know of that builds a Walsh Driver using modern methods, and that's HHR out of Ohio. German Physiks also uses a driver similar to the Walsh.

I owned a pair of F's for a while, but they are darn hard and expensive to repair and maintain, so I sold them to a collector. But my god, what a sound!

s7302366 (2).jpg s7302360 (2).jpg
 
#108
swspiers said:
No crossover, perfectly time-aligned and one of the only speakers that can accurately reproduce a square wave. It also radiated the sound 360 degrees.
Click to expand...

That would be interesting. Square wave at what frequency? 41 Hz?

Interesting is that a signal may not look like a square wave on an oscilloscope yet a human hearing would detect it as such. The harmonics do not have to be in phase. And a lot of things like filters or the room can throw the harmonic phase off. There are studies/papers on this phenomenon (not all are "free" but there is summary information)
http://www.audioholics.com/educatio...an-hearing-phase-distortion-audibility-part-2
with a bibliography
 
#109
swspiers said:
I can think of one, and only one speaker I would put up against the Quad- the Ohm F. A single speaker called a Walsh Driver, cone-shaped and omni-directional, that transmitted the signal from the top to the bottom of the speaker. No crossover, perfectly time-aligned and one of the only speakers that can accurately reproduce a square wave. It also radiated the sound 360 degrees.

They weren't very efficient, and needed about 300 Watts to drive them and 350 to blow them

There's only one company in the world that I know of that builds a Walsh Driver using modern methods, and that's HHR out of Ohio. German Physiks also uses a driver similar to the Walsh.

I owned a pair of F's for a while, but they are darn hard and expensive to repair and maintain, so I sold them to a collector. But my god, what a sound!
Click to expand...

I worked in the repair shop for an Ohm dealer back then. They did sound nice, but as you say they definitely had lots of downside as well.
 
#113
As far as the thread topic -- I think any applied field, you can frequently truthfully say there's been nothing truly new for decades. Really everything we work with today comes from Altec way back when. Aeronautical: Really nothing new since jet turbines. Chem E: nothing really new since early last century. On the other hand, in each field we're bringing new developments to the conferences and to the market. Even if it's incremental advancement, sometimes those increments are meaningful.

Something that's really stands out to me about music instrument amplification is how much we're stuck in the 50s and 60s when the electric guitar and bass sounds were developed, in a lot of ways because of cost and availability, the desire for volume, etc.

wrt BFM, I recently was reading the thread about ISI. Early in the thread, there was notable nay-saying about the company and their engineers, that their speakers could never sound good, they didn't know what they were doing, etc... A lot of the sort of e-peen stroking that happens so much on TB (to the point I've given up on the community a couple times, myself). Some of the "experts" here have the initial response of stroking the epeen and trashing others' ideas without giving full consideration.

In fact, from people who've actually played ISI's gear, they're quite good, even tho different from the industry-standard Ampegish sound. In fact, their engineer (Dan Wiggins) is well-informed, thoughtful, and applying good design principles.

That thread is just one example of how some portion of this community tends to attack as a first knee-jerk reaction. Even if the peen is massive (and certainly BFM has contributed a lot), IMO it carries negative consequences on discussions when it quashes and quells others' attempts to contribute.

ISI thread if interested:
http://www.talkbass.com/forum/f15/industrial-strength-industries-844655/
 
#115
mulchor said:
As far as the thread topic -- I think any applied field, you can frequently truthfully say there's been nothing truly new for decades.
Click to expand...

Well, "frequently" provides a lot of wiggle room; certainly not true for every field.


Something that's really stands out to me about music instrument amplification is how much we're stuck in the 50s and 60s when the electric guitar and bass sounds were developed, in a lot of ways because of cost and availability, the desire for volume, etc.
Click to expand...

Agree re: "stuck in the 50s and 60s", but I think it's more that traditions are extremely durable in the MI biz.


That thread is just one example of how some portion of this community tends to attack as a first knee-jerk reaction.
Click to expand...

I thought the critiques were mostly valid. The exchange between Dan Wiggins and BFM was educational for me.

And I hope never to see an elaboration on this "peen" business. :o
 
#116
Nice thread! Makes me sort of happy to have lived through the 50's and 60's. I've owned or repaired many vintage speakers. This thread took me back again.
I'll never forget a certain system a friend had that I can still hear....a pair of Bose 901's with a Phase Linear 400 (?) amp and an AR turntable. The preamp was first class, too, but I can't remember what model it was.
I got to this thread because I did a search on 'NEO' and yes, I expected it to show up here. It certainly was a welcome milestone to us bass players, who, unlike guitar players, have always had a harder time getting the tone. We've also had to carry more IRON to the gigs....bigger amps and bigger speakers, and have had to buy vans to haul it around, all of which brings me to my point:
Why are so many manufacturers abandoning NEO? Peavey quit making neo cabs, as did Carvin and so many others. I see Fender's new line has neo's. Must be cost? For me, I haven't found anything I can afford and my rig is still way too heavy for me. I have a Peavey 410TVX and at almost 100 lbs, is too much!
Does anybody have an opinion on the demise of neo's on the market? Are they not holding up or what? I guess I'll have to shell out 900 smackers for a Markbass 104, then? That's a lot of money (to me).
 
#117
bumperbass said:
...I'll never forget a certain system a friend had that I can still hear....a pair of Bose 901's with a Phase Linear 400 (?) amp and an AR turntable.
Click to expand...

I was in a band that used 901s powered by a Phase Linear 400 for FOH. They weren't much good for that, but worked fairly well for side fill monitors.


Why are so many manufacturers abandoning NEO? Peavey quit making neo cabs, as did Carvin and so many others. I see Fender's new line has neo's. Must be cost?
Click to expand...

Yeah, cost, plus availability, due to China cornering the neodymium market, then restricting supply. Topic has been much-discussed here.
 
#119
bumperbass said:
...Does anybody have an opinion on the demise of neo's on the market? Are they not holding up or what? I guess I'll have to shell out 900 smackers for a Markbass 104, then? That's a lot of money (to me).
Click to expand...

If you have the time, space and a few tools, you could build a fEARful 15/6 for quite a bit less than that. I built a 12/6 a couple years ago for ~$350. The price increase in neo drivers would bump that up to maybe $450 today. A 15/6 should only cost about another ~$150 to build.

Of course this assumes you do all the work yourself and that you cut a few corners that the Authorized Builders wouldn't (such as using generic plywood, paint instead of Duratex, etc.).
 
#120
wcriley said:
If you have the time, space and a few tools, you could build a fEARful 15/6 for quite a bit less than that. I built a 12/6 a couple years ago for ~$350. The price increase in neo drivers would bump that up to maybe $450 today. A 15/6 should only cost about another ~$150 to build.

Of course this assumes you do all the work yourself and that you cut a few corners that the Authorized Builders wouldn't (such as using generic plywood, paint instead of Duratex, etc.).
Click to expand...

Not to mention that the 15/6 has the potential to kick that 410 in the teeth.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom
Back