Yes, those are Jensen Imperials in stock looking cabinets. A high end 3 way coax. On the left looks to be a folded bass horn. Interesting stuff but bears no relationship to the early full range Western Electric systems.
Interesting system. I don't recall anyone suggesting that horns were abandoned. I did point out that full range compression driver driven horn systems were a dead end in cinema use, due to their performance limitations.
That would be a belief dependent on evidetiary experience.
Yep, I was looking for tube amps in the shape of a horn. That would have been cool.
I don't think of a horn as an amplifier, although it's not a bad layman's term. I think of it more as an impedance transformer. Of course if they had said "Horn Shaped Transformers", I might have been looking even harder.
I don't think of a horn as an amplifier, although it's not a bad layman's term. I think of it more as an impedance transformer. Of course if they had said "Horn Shaped Transformers", I might have been looking even harder.
Okay, large, made of plywood and painted black?
But no 555 driver, no large full range compression driver of any kind. A four way, in fact, based on 50's HiFi units (the G610).
What drove those big horns? I can't tell. Was it a compression driver or a cone?
Was the resemblance to the W.E. horns just a coincidence, or something else?
Were the W.E. horns always used fullrange, or were they sometimes part of a multi-way system?
Was the resemblance to the W.E. horns just a coincidence, or something else?
Were the W.E. horns always used fullrange, or were they sometimes part of a multi-way system?
the horns on the left are exponential mids... clearly. probably about 100Hz cut off. maybe slightly lower. not bass horns. way too small. and too short! plus the split sideways (western 16A design) is used specifically to get more treble off axis. no need for that in a bass horn. thats for intelligibility. also western. all 20's tricks of the trade. my guess is that's for the vocals only. that's how they got the big fletcher stuff behind the podium without feeding back into the mics. a separate speaker for the presenters...
if you don't recognize the work of western electric in that foto, you know VERY little about the history of loudspeakers.
jc
if you don't recognize the work of western electric in that foto, you know VERY little about the history of loudspeakers.
jc
All I can add to this is that the Bass Horns and Jensen cabs were developed specifically for the Conn Electric organ in question...so no, they weren't developed specifically for vocals or as a PA address system but as reproducers for a musical instrument (organ).
Conn Organs (and others) were attempting to recreate the SPLs, presence and freq response of the traditional theatre/church pipe organs found in so many public venues of the time but seldom being built anymore by the 1950s due to their cost, size and complexity.
Conn Organs (and others) were attempting to recreate the SPLs, presence and freq response of the traditional theatre/church pipe organs found in so many public venues of the time but seldom being built anymore by the 1950s due to their cost, size and complexity.
Midranges?
Yes, clearly they were designing a system for the organ's playback. The Jensen Imperial cabinets look totally stock. With their G610 Triaxes they would be essentially full range although I suspect they would be weak in the 50Hz region, hence the augmenting bass horns (unless midrange horns need 8 ft tall mouths).
So any bass horn with a curved folded shape is now a Western Electric design? I may not know much about the history of loudspeakers but I seem to recall some loudspeakers and gramophone horns that predate WE and were similarly curved. Maybe even some musical instruments.
David
Yes, clearly they were designing a system for the organ's playback. The Jensen Imperial cabinets look totally stock. With their G610 Triaxes they would be essentially full range although I suspect they would be weak in the 50Hz region, hence the augmenting bass horns (unless midrange horns need 8 ft tall mouths).
So any bass horn with a curved folded shape is now a Western Electric design? I may not know much about the history of loudspeakers but I seem to recall some loudspeakers and gramophone horns that predate WE and were similarly curved. Maybe even some musical instruments.
David
that is very interesting about the organ! it makes sense. there are 2 speaker designs going on in that pic. not one. the speakers on the left are definitely NOT bass horns. at the mouth, they are about 80 inches wide, 60 inches tall, and turned "sideways" 16A style (the 16A has an 80Hz cutoff and is smaller by about a third). that would put cutoff around 60Hz. very close to the WE15A. which is slightly smaller. who knows the driver they used... can't see it, but if it is a larger jensen compression driver, or a special design (?), it could be down in the upper bass-lower midrange. a pair of WE555s would get them to 60Hz. 4 of them, at impressive SPLs. the 15A with the 555 has a vertical dispersion of 60 degrees and a horizontal dispersion of 40 degrees in it's normal installation. that is meant for a tall theater with a balcony(ies). flipping them on their sides is clearly aimed at better horizontal coverage. the bins on the right are not that interesting... they are obviously based on the shearer-fletcher stuff. economical bass. lots of it. shallow and stackable. it's the big mid horns that are cool.
Last edited:
They sure look W.E. 16A inspired to me. Of course they could have come up with it independently, but wouldn't Mr. Kent have been aware of the W.E. designs? He would have been a teenager when they were current. The resemblance is so striking I find it hard to believe they weren't inspired by the W.E. design that was about 25 years old at the time.
It's hard to tell from the photo what the driver for those horns might be. The only part of the throat that is visible on the far left of the photo is quite large. Did it terminate into a cone driver, not a compression driver? Hard to say. Also no hint in the text as to the range those horns were meant to cover.
It's hard to tell from the photo what the driver for those horns might be. The only part of the throat that is visible on the far left of the photo is quite large. Did it terminate into a cone driver, not a compression driver? Hard to say. Also no hint in the text as to the range those horns were meant to cover.
There seems to be much confusion here about the output capabilities of full range compression driver type horns. I understand that the 555 was rated down to 75 Hz and handily covered the voice range. Still, it's just the laws of physics that the output capability would be severely limited compared to any comparable cutoff horn based on larger cone drivers. Radiation impedance and efficiency would rise and give you more spl for the available excursion but you can't expect miracles from a compression driver with the radiating area and excursion of a 5" or so midrange.
You can see that in the progression of the WE theater designs. For bigger venues multiple 555s were used and when that wasn't enough then the open back 18" units were added. The 555 would just not be able to put out appreciable bass power. As the "talkies" progressed from the novelty of added dialog a wider range system was essential. Decades later we may find they do very well in a home hifi context, especially on voice and solo violin (which seem to be favorites in the demos described), but even for home levels the sytem needs to be turned into a 2 or 3 way system to offer more than just "magical midrange".
If anyone is a JASA member they can try to download the article on the Conn sound system:
Cookies Required
I'd be willing to bet money that these curved horns are purely meant for bass augmentation and are driven by 4 or more 15" or 18" cone units. The technical paper preamble talks of the difficulties of overcoming the noise levels in the huge volume. Adding compression driver "bass" horns to a system that already has 8 x 15" units (the Jensens) would make no sense at all, as it would be a large step backwards in output capibility.
David
You can see that in the progression of the WE theater designs. For bigger venues multiple 555s were used and when that wasn't enough then the open back 18" units were added. The 555 would just not be able to put out appreciable bass power. As the "talkies" progressed from the novelty of added dialog a wider range system was essential. Decades later we may find they do very well in a home hifi context, especially on voice and solo violin (which seem to be favorites in the demos described), but even for home levels the sytem needs to be turned into a 2 or 3 way system to offer more than just "magical midrange".
If anyone is a JASA member they can try to download the article on the Conn sound system:
Cookies Required
I'd be willing to bet money that these curved horns are purely meant for bass augmentation and are driven by 4 or more 15" or 18" cone units. The technical paper preamble talks of the difficulties of overcoming the noise levels in the huge volume. Adding compression driver "bass" horns to a system that already has 8 x 15" units (the Jensens) would make no sense at all, as it would be a large step backwards in output capibility.
David
I agree.
Which is what I've said throughout the entire thread. Maybe no one noticed. Yes, they sound nice "full range" but they sound fantastic as part of a multi-way system. How much bandwidth you allow them is a system designer's choice.
It would be fun to find out, hope we can. They look to me like they were driven by cones. I hope somewhere there is documentation of they range they covered in that system. Looking at it, I'd put my money on a wideband midrange.
to speaker dave: this is really and truly idiotic. what is the point? everytime the discussion turns to something interesting, to develop, it gets derailed... by you, and others who go entirely on theory and some weird ideology. not experience. not even tested, measured or even rationally discussed information... which is the tool that is so bluntly used here by the ¤objective¤ camp. rationality? let me get this straight: you are going to bet money that you are right. like a grown man. and yet you freak out over discussion of old drivers and what they can do. i have only heard about what you say they cannot do, and you have NEVER heard them or measured them. i work with them. i listen to them. i worked with a crew of people who brought an entire original system from 1928 to a show where thousands of people could hear them. and yet, you insist i cannot possibly have something "correct" to say about them. that i do not know what i am talking about. that i am apparently subjectively informed about my experience and therefore without merit.
i assure you that the 15A indeed goes down to 80Hz and up to 6.5KHz. with one 555 driver. efficiency is about 118 dB per watt at one meter on axis. the 15B (2 555 drivers), is 122 dB per watt at one meter. maximum power into the 15A is 15 watts. the 15B is twice that. this is simply true. not only is this the factory spec, but i have measured it. and i am not the only one to know this... a quick trip to the internet will suffice for the specs. they were installed in theaters all across the US until as recently as the 1980's. the 555 is NOT anything like the drivers you know. it is smaller, lighter and lower in resonance frequency than modern drivers.
you don't have to take anything from me. and i am sure you won't. but i don't hear you offering anything to give in exchange. no knowledge. no experience, no explanation... just no. no this and not possibly that. and yet, you do NOT know that. no experience. no measurements. nothing. just what you think.
i just want it to be clear, that you do NOT know what you are talking about in this case. because you do not. nothing personal. you just don't know. but have a lot to say. say some more... write a lot more about what you don't know. please.
jc morrison
i assure you that the 15A indeed goes down to 80Hz and up to 6.5KHz. with one 555 driver. efficiency is about 118 dB per watt at one meter on axis. the 15B (2 555 drivers), is 122 dB per watt at one meter. maximum power into the 15A is 15 watts. the 15B is twice that. this is simply true. not only is this the factory spec, but i have measured it. and i am not the only one to know this... a quick trip to the internet will suffice for the specs. they were installed in theaters all across the US until as recently as the 1980's. the 555 is NOT anything like the drivers you know. it is smaller, lighter and lower in resonance frequency than modern drivers.
you don't have to take anything from me. and i am sure you won't. but i don't hear you offering anything to give in exchange. no knowledge. no experience, no explanation... just no. no this and not possibly that. and yet, you do NOT know that. no experience. no measurements. nothing. just what you think.
i just want it to be clear, that you do NOT know what you are talking about in this case. because you do not. nothing personal. you just don't know. but have a lot to say. say some more... write a lot more about what you don't know. please.
jc morrison
JC, I understand your frustration (and agree with a lot of what you said) but there is no reason to get personal. None. 
I'm sorry you are finding the conversation so distressing but I don't think I've been saying all that you suggest.
The latest question raised is about a Conn developed organ PA, unrelated to Western Electric except for the apparent folding scheme for the auxiliary horn. I'm not casting any dispersions on WE.
Thanks for the numbers on the 15A. I have no doubt that the efficiency is quite high and that the frequency range might approach 80 to 6.5kHz (although the coiled horns don't typically do that well at the upper end). That is not to say that the full efficiency is maintained over that range. Nor does it suggest that the 15 watts power handling is any more than a thermal rating that does not apply down to 80 Hz. You can no more prove it than I can disprove it short of conducting some modern day testing.
I have admitted that I have no direct experience with the WE drivers and horns, but I have a great deal of design and installation experience with many PA, cinema, and studio monitor systems as well as the drive units for all, and with modern constant directivity horns. My grasp of the theory and the practicalities of horns and compression drivers is pretty good. I also am a student of the history of sound reproduction and know that many evolutionary milestones, while ahead of their time, are quite dated in performance within a decade or so.
I feel that there should be a couple of voices in this thread that balance out the unabashed and somewhat unrealistic love being showered on what where probably quite well engineered products of their time. I spent an hour or so last night reading up on the history of the 1925 Orthophonic Victrola and Western Electrics admirable contribution to that. They are said to compare quite favorably with the Edison Diamond disc players that famously were used in "live vs. recorded" tests that fooled a lot of people at the time.
In spite of the great step forward they might represent, do we really feel that they aren't surpassed by modern systems?
David S.
The latest question raised is about a Conn developed organ PA, unrelated to Western Electric except for the apparent folding scheme for the auxiliary horn. I'm not casting any dispersions on WE.
Thanks for the numbers on the 15A. I have no doubt that the efficiency is quite high and that the frequency range might approach 80 to 6.5kHz (although the coiled horns don't typically do that well at the upper end). That is not to say that the full efficiency is maintained over that range. Nor does it suggest that the 15 watts power handling is any more than a thermal rating that does not apply down to 80 Hz. You can no more prove it than I can disprove it short of conducting some modern day testing.
I have admitted that I have no direct experience with the WE drivers and horns, but I have a great deal of design and installation experience with many PA, cinema, and studio monitor systems as well as the drive units for all, and with modern constant directivity horns. My grasp of the theory and the practicalities of horns and compression drivers is pretty good. I also am a student of the history of sound reproduction and know that many evolutionary milestones, while ahead of their time, are quite dated in performance within a decade or so.
I feel that there should be a couple of voices in this thread that balance out the unabashed and somewhat unrealistic love being showered on what where probably quite well engineered products of their time. I spent an hour or so last night reading up on the history of the 1925 Orthophonic Victrola and Western Electrics admirable contribution to that. They are said to compare quite favorably with the Edison Diamond disc players that famously were used in "live vs. recorded" tests that fooled a lot of people at the time.
In spite of the great step forward they might represent, do we really feel that they aren't surpassed by modern systems?
David S.