Anecdotally, I have heard that the Atlas K-55-V, introduced in 1961, was supposed to be a 555 clone, albeit with a perm. magnet and phenolic 'phragm. It's no longer it production, but its direct descendent the Atlas PD-5VH is.
Here's the PWT curve of the PD-5VH.
Attachments
This is a great conversation, my own limited experience tends to support the idea that some of these vintage pieces offer performance at least comparable to their modern counterparts. The march of progress from an acoustical perspective may have been slightly exaggerated - not that there has not been progress in CAE, CAD/CAM, materials, power handling, ease of use, compactness, etc. .
I spent years avoiding vintage Altec and JBL hardware because of what I read in mass media hifi magazines in the 1970s and 1980s about how outmoded and hopelessly obsolete it all was - so it was a bit of a shock when a friend loaned me a pair of JBL C-37 Rhodes when in a bout of poverty I was forced to sell my Maggies (1.6QR) around the turn of the millenium. They were far, far better than I expected - in fact they forced me to reconsider the whole march of progress.
I spent years avoiding vintage Altec and JBL hardware because of what I read in mass media hifi magazines in the 1970s and 1980s about how outmoded and hopelessly obsolete it all was - so it was a bit of a shock when a friend loaned me a pair of JBL C-37 Rhodes when in a bout of poverty I was forced to sell my Maggies (1.6QR) around the turn of the millenium. They were far, far better than I expected - in fact they forced me to reconsider the whole march of progress.
I believe in steady progress, not that every new device is better than the previous, but that the trend is generally upwards. Audio science is well published and a competitive field so when one company makes real progress the others see it either copy it or better it. Materials advances are available to all. Software packages are available to all. When a good solution comes about everybody sees it and finds a way to better it.
Thats what is so unlikely with your arguement that WE was way ahead of the rest. They could certainly dramatically advance the state-of-the-art and invest heavier with better brains and resouces. But how could they hoard that knowledge and prevent others from copying it? In an industry where everybody watches what the next guy does and anyone could buy and dissect a unit, how would they keep their secrets? How could they create something so good that nobody could ever match it, that would retain its superiority to this day? If the competition thought that WE somehow "had the answer" what lengths would they have gone to get the knowledge. It would be very simple to poach away a few from the project and bring all their knowledge with them. Or to pull apart a couple of units and copy them. How could a curved horn made of plywood not be copyable? Special herbs and spices?
The truth is that none of their contemporaries thought they had done anything special. The full range WE horn was a dead end. The 3 way WE system had significant flaws (per Shearer and Hilliard). Olson's full range 8" driver horn was a dead end. The needs of the industry (cinemas, not audiophiles) were better met by bass bins and multicells. They (MGM then Altec) developed what the industry needed and the market decided.
Regards,
David
Agree, that most speakers do not size properly, funny i find that horns are always too big and no i don't think they do this better than most. If i had to fill a big room @ 75 ft away , absolutely it would be an Horn speaker or a 12 ft x5ft ESl /Planer ...
Horse/ course
I'd say "Don't pore me none, Garcon..brang me a damn BEER!"
Actually I have been at WE listening sessions where the wine cost far more than $300 and I, in fact, chose to drink $2 cans of Korean stout.
People who own large WE systems usually don't live in the slums like I do.
This clinical psychology lab rat lit on testing always cracks me up. It is a fake situation set up to test the reliability of other fake situations. A test within a test, where everybody knows they are in a test. Usually no controls for listening skill and past experience.
Yeah, that sounds totally scientific.
I am a sociocultural anthropologist and my lab is the world of people doing what they do, as they do it. Listening is not a monolithic defined activity. Goals shift around a lot--relaxation, evaluating records or gear, background music. Sometimes we just listen to some music. Sometimes a cigar is only a cigar.
Formal staged tests to determine how people perceive differences between gear are a very minor role for audio equipment in university labs. i wouldn't based my system building decisions on it.
I often run WE setups at audio shows. Obviously this is a social event scenario and the fraternizing and discussions are at least as interesting and important as the listening. I talk about history and technology, learn a lot from peoples' reactions and observations, fend off a few ******* who loudly complain that the system has no extreme HF...
It is not the ideal situation for concentrated listening but it is strange thinking to totally throw out the experience due to interference of some presumed herd mentality notion.
I will say that i have not heard any modern speaker that sounded Right
(last decade) too much software and not enuff understanding of sound appears to be the issue. Most of the ones that sound correct are designs that go back along way and their updated versions. In that respect, I'm willing to conclude this WE speaker could be one of them, but I'm also with Dave that many from that early era were disappointing.
@ Speaker Dave,
Thanks for the response, i will look over all that was posted for comment ...
Hi
I think you guys are missing the point, it isn’t that “old stuff sounds better”, It’s that this driver was particularly good, perhaps the best in it’s day in a theater and still very articulate now in a home..
Also, as some remind, we don’t measure like we hear and vis versa, interpreting measurements with experience does give some ability to guess what it will sound like but “where the sound goes” and how it was radiated is
ALSO part of what we hear with our two ears but don’t see with one microphone location.
These latter issues are just slightly understood / considered in hifi, mostly in colorful graphs now but more so in commercial sound where comprehensive acoustic models are routinely used to location speaker systems and the results of not doing so much more problematic.
Also, like taste and vision, we don’t all hear the same way, some people are more sensitive to some things while others forgiving and are happy with a distorted transistor radio.
Remember too, as studies show, brand identity and appearance plays a very strong / dominant role in hifi speaker ratings, it is MUCH easier to make a cool looking speaker that is made like people expect or think it should be, than one who’s design follows the acoustic principals that govern the radiation of sound. Form follows function isn’t as attractive as an appearance driven design.
Just as some recognize the “marketing why” of our degradation of most recordings and popularity of mp3’s, a similar modernization took place shrinking loudspeakers so that more people would by them.
The focus on “where the sound goes” and arriving at a wide band single source has been the driving theme for me for 15 years now, I have heard a WE driver before and i have to say, things like the source radiation is something’s you really don’t understand until you hear / taste /feel /smell “it”, until then, it’s just words.
It’s maybe like this, until you have heard a powerful phantom center image and no apparent left and right source, that sounds impossible.
To be clear too, we hear how sound radiates, a speaker like the WE on a proper horn can cover the most sensitive part of your hearing as a single source and can do it with much more pattern control that shoe boxes afford..
Also, how much difference can the arrangement of the drivers and source structure make in a very difficult room relative to the “other way”? scroll down to post #36 to see a large array of point sources, scroll to post #41 for a review of our way.
IMAX cinema sound - Page 3
While we don’t advertise, don’t market to the public and aren’t ubiquitous, we do supply loudspeakers for some specialty move theater and some of the Large Omnimax theaters being converted to Imax.
That based on a side by side audition of the possible systems.
Heck, in 20 -30 years, retired Synergy Horns might start showing up in peoples homes too.
Best,
Tom
I think you guys are missing the point, it isn’t that “old stuff sounds better”, It’s that this driver was particularly good, perhaps the best in it’s day in a theater and still very articulate now in a home..
Also, as some remind, we don’t measure like we hear and vis versa, interpreting measurements with experience does give some ability to guess what it will sound like but “where the sound goes” and how it was radiated is
ALSO part of what we hear with our two ears but don’t see with one microphone location.
These latter issues are just slightly understood / considered in hifi, mostly in colorful graphs now but more so in commercial sound where comprehensive acoustic models are routinely used to location speaker systems and the results of not doing so much more problematic.
Also, like taste and vision, we don’t all hear the same way, some people are more sensitive to some things while others forgiving and are happy with a distorted transistor radio.
Remember too, as studies show, brand identity and appearance plays a very strong / dominant role in hifi speaker ratings, it is MUCH easier to make a cool looking speaker that is made like people expect or think it should be, than one who’s design follows the acoustic principals that govern the radiation of sound. Form follows function isn’t as attractive as an appearance driven design.
Just as some recognize the “marketing why” of our degradation of most recordings and popularity of mp3’s, a similar modernization took place shrinking loudspeakers so that more people would by them.
The focus on “where the sound goes” and arriving at a wide band single source has been the driving theme for me for 15 years now, I have heard a WE driver before and i have to say, things like the source radiation is something’s you really don’t understand until you hear / taste /feel /smell “it”, until then, it’s just words.
It’s maybe like this, until you have heard a powerful phantom center image and no apparent left and right source, that sounds impossible.
To be clear too, we hear how sound radiates, a speaker like the WE on a proper horn can cover the most sensitive part of your hearing as a single source and can do it with much more pattern control that shoe boxes afford..
Also, how much difference can the arrangement of the drivers and source structure make in a very difficult room relative to the “other way”? scroll down to post #36 to see a large array of point sources, scroll to post #41 for a review of our way.
IMAX cinema sound - Page 3
While we don’t advertise, don’t market to the public and aren’t ubiquitous, we do supply loudspeakers for some specialty move theater and some of the Large Omnimax theaters being converted to Imax.
That based on a side by side audition of the possible systems.
Heck, in 20 -30 years, retired Synergy Horns might start showing up in peoples homes too.
Best,
Tom
WE designs were semi-public. You can read about the drivers in Bell Laboratories Reports. WE did take part in the open scientific discourse but surely did not reveal all of the tricks, such as the complicated annealing treatment of diaphragms or the precise composition of the alloys, but I'd think one scientist could call another and probably find out much of the detail.
WE also had a ferocious patent defense apparatus. AT&T ERPIs and Bell's business model wanted that licensing money. For example, Leo Fender had to pay the ERPI man for his early amps when used in public entertainment applications. That what all of the "licensed by Western Electric" decals on 30s and 40s amps were about. WE had goons walking the streets of LA, checking in bars to see if they were using unlicensed tube amps with Bell patent designs. It was like ASCAP.
The cash was in controlling and defending their intellectual property, which AT&T did not shy away from in the least.
The WE drivers were copied in the 30s early 40s, possibly under some licensing arrangement. Racon did some similar things and IPC OEMed some very similar units from somebody.
The particulars of the intellectual property legal deals during the Shearer horn development era are surely recorded, but I am focusing more on the goods.
The groundbreaking and significant aspect of the WE drivers (and WE owned intellectual property generally) can be seen in their influence on that ground changing project and subsequent technology to this day.
375s and 288s are cheaped-down 594As. How many later drivers are modifications of that basic formula to various heights of aspiration and pricing?
Western Electric had a patent on the vacuum tube phase inverter in the teens. How classic is that? The 594A design is almost that fundamental.
I'd say that much of the subsequent innovation on midrange compression drivers was about economics and practicality. A 5 pound $300 Italian neodym driver is really far more sensible than a 50 pound field coil unit with a permandur pole piece that alone would cost $1000 to manufacture in some quantity today. Do we need cast iron pots with thick forged iron handles or will a zinc cast cover do the job?
The power curve of the 594A is within a hair of the theoretical ideal. They did not leave much room for improvement, rather they provided an exemplar...a model. Taking in consideration what they set out to do, they nailed it.
As a theater guy, you know that multicells and woofer cabs make more sense than huge snail horns. I think the old masters felt the same way by 1940, when WE was backing out of theater anyway.
But I don't see them backing away from the Mirrophonic model but embracing it, streamlining it, and making more practical and a bit less expensive.
The early Wide Range systems were a five year slice of time. Mirrophonic multicells took over by the mid-30s and that topology persists today.
The multicell (radial, sectoral) horn plus bass cab model is flexible and expandable in a way that the full range snail horn model is not.
Mid 30s WE service bulletins say to take down the old snail horns smash them to prevent further use, and throw them in the dumpster. I'm happy that some survived.
What I see as practical improvement is better coverage control in horns and the ability to use digital controllers to mach stuff up and EQ it in the fly instead of winding coils and calculating pads. We can make up for efficiency with big cheap power. For a pro install tech, that is major progress.
For music listening, the aesthetic experience is paramount. We don't mind the impracticality sometimes and many seem downright masochistic. Nobody ever accused audiophiles of over-practicality. Pro sound needs to be a lot more sensible and cost/benefit aware.
Last edited:
The 4592nd mid
BMS 4592ND-MID Neodymium Mid frequency Compression Driver - BMS 4592ND-Middle - BMS 4592ND-MID lightweight neodymium 2 inch mid frequency compression driver. BMS neodymium 4592ND-MID mid frequency compression drivers are available here.
May not be based on the 555 but is in the same vain and would be where I would start on a modern clone.
A precise statement of the Myth of Progess.
I am not saying that myths are untrue or meaniningless...quite the contrary, myths tell us why we do what we do and how it fits in with the presumed nature of the universe.
I ask you as a intelligent and experienced professional practicioner to decipher the metrics the engineering institutions use to measure progess.
How often is it the dollar, the shipping weight and packaging costs, the billed minute, useless featurism, and empty marketing showmanship that determines and defines progress?
And how often is it fundamental advances in listening enjoyment?
No, that one is based on the WE 594A. I think that would be an excellent choice to experiment with today.
I am also real tempted by the large format Radians and will probably pick up a pair to check out.
I am still trying to figure out if I like polyester diaphragms. Aluminum has been very good to me.
I have B&C coaxes with a mylar compression tweeter. They seem very sensitive to the parts in the crossover. Tizzy with cheap PETP caps but a Russian oil/Paper cap in the HP made for a really sweet tone. The standalone B&C driver is really inexpensive. Definitely a budget driver candidate there too.
Most of this top-line pro stuff works pretty good on technical grounds. It comes down to preferences in textures, flavors, and cork sniffing subtleties when selecting for domestic music listening use.
Last edited:
Found a link with measurements of a 594A on a 24A horn (300hz multicell).
WE 24A+594A Frequency Spec
Man those measurements sound great!
Seriously. Take a look and tell me where the progress is.
WE 24A+594A Frequency Spec
Man those measurements sound great!
Seriously. Take a look and tell me where the progress is.
Nice to see response curves. Note that there are 20 dB between the lines so there is a more than 10dB rise from midband level to the 3 and 4k peaks. I assume that 50 and 100Hz bumps are hum in the system (Japanese curve?) so there is decent response from 200 to 12kHz.
I have no doubt that with a proper crossover to a good pair of 15's and a bit of EQ we could make that sound great. Of course we would need to see what it does off axis if we want to satisfy more than one listener.
I thought the W.E. stuff was supposed to be way better than modern stuff, not just "roughly comparable". You also owe an appology to the designers from the 50's because EV, JBL and Altec could easily do as well as this.
David S.
Addendum: --------------------------------------
Here are some pics and mpgs of a 24A system we took to CES 2011. Driver was the GIP enhanced 594A with an original WE 597A tweeter.
Whoa, did we ever overdrive that room! We got out of hand that time...too much speaker for the space. A speaker for a 2500 seat theater in a hotel room. Couldn't even move them around due to size.
Sounded decent though not optimal...but is it ever at CES?
Jimmie Vaughan, Jimi Hendrix, and Franco Corelli on the samples.
Audiogon Shows: CES 2011: Silbatone Acoustics
Here are some pics and mpgs of a 24A system we took to CES 2011. Driver was the GIP enhanced 594A with an original WE 597A tweeter.
Whoa, did we ever overdrive that room! We got out of hand that time...too much speaker for the space. A speaker for a 2500 seat theater in a hotel room. Couldn't even move them around due to size.
Sounded decent though not optimal...but is it ever at CES?
Jimmie Vaughan, Jimi Hendrix, and Franco Corelli on the samples.
Audiogon Shows: CES 2011: Silbatone Acoustics
This has turned into a good discussion. For my part, I would just like to thank Joe Roberts for taking the time to share some of his knowledge of Western Electric models and history. Very interesting!
I met Joe at last year's RMAF and spent some time listening to the pair of 757s with Silbatone electronics. That room had some of the most realistic sound I heard at the show.
I met Joe at last year's RMAF and spent some time listening to the pair of 757s with Silbatone electronics. That room had some of the most realistic sound I heard at the show.
Joe, will you be demonstrating at the Capital AudioFest this July?
2012 Capital Audiofest | capitalaudiofest.com | High-end Audio Show on July 13-15, 2012 | Rockville MD, DC, VA | stereophile, analog audio, audiogon, audiofest, turntable, vacuum tube, speakers, amplifier, electronics, preamplier : Exhibitor List 201
2012 Capital Audiofest | capitalaudiofest.com | High-end Audio Show on July 13-15, 2012 | Rockville MD, DC, VA | stereophile, analog audio, audiogon, audiofest, turntable, vacuum tube, speakers, amplifier, electronics, preamplier : Exhibitor List 201
Measurement conditions are unknown and probably not ideal.
I'd like to see that done with the WE crossovers and electronics as it was meant to be used in system. This 24A/594A was designed as part of an overall system.
Respectable basic performance though....about what you could hope to see from many un-EQed exponential horns from 2012.
Of course, the EV Altec and JBL guys could do that...and I am sure the further back you go, the more they realized and appreciated the fundamental contribution of WESTERN ELECTRIC toward their art.
The sublime qualities that WE offers to the music listener probably don't show up on that graph in any decipherable way.
I still say...listen to a 288 or 375, then listen to a 594A and it is totally different ballgame.
They did not meet, let alone exceed, the performance of the 594A...not empirically and not subjectively.
I am only discussing the technical performance because it came up in discussion. My point is that the WE field coil gear SOUNDS A LOT BETTER.
We need smart people to help explain why this is-- with the benefit of modern learning, instrumentation, and hindsight-- and not people to say it can't possibly be true, when the predominance of listener reaction leans in the other direction.
Here is a curve I took myself: WE 594A on a short Siemens Eurodyn tractrix horn....a 1950s German design. No EQ. Red trace is Eurodyn horn @ about 1m on axis. Man this sounded mighty fine indeed. I could live with that combo.
Attachments
Possible, likely, but not obligatory.
The Puget Sound! club in Seattle do this in their excellent speaker contest. The judges never see the speakers. They put on a great contest that other audio clubs should emulate.
However; having been a judge in a large, sighted speaker contest (sitting beside Don Keele) I can say that a lot of speakers defied our expectations, good or bad. Speakers you might think will sound terrific by their looks or technology, don't always, and vice-versa. It got the point that we just did not know what was going to come out of the next box. We are influenced by expectations, but are not total slaves to them. The GOTO setup at the D.C. show was a good example of that, too. They were too shrill and a lot of folks commented strongly about that - no matter how great they looked or how much they cost.
Again, read up on this. Some could pick the Strads and the Guaneri de Gesu, but actually liked the new instruments as well or better. They were surprised at how good they new instruments sound and play in a bind test. Just like some folks might be surprised how good "ancient" speakers sound, if given the chance.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.