for what purpose
To state his informed opinion. To foster a lively discussion. To make this a forum. Not appropriate?
To state his informed opinion. To foster a lively discussion. To make this a forum. Not appropriate?
What he means is is it better at giving musical pleasure or is it better at providing the same sound over a large coverage area, at high SPL and wide bandwidth. And the underlying disagreement is that while we have achieved progress and engineered solutions in all these other areas, which are no doubt important, we still haven't reproduced the same enjoyment that these older systems deliver.
I see.
Clearly they weren't better for their intended purpose, of being cinema speakers. Whatever their qualities as a full range system, the Shearer style 2-way had a broader frequency response without the timing issue of the 12 ft. Coiled horn. Thats why those systems superceeded the W.E. designs in theaters.
The argument seems to be that they are better in an audiophile situation, as a larger home system for an individual's enjoyment. I can't comment directly on that but I would be surprised if 80 years of evolution hadn't gotten us beyond their possibly quite fine performance.
David
Right. That what I was asking. Are they what you or I would spec for the next Phish tour, or Yankee Stadium, or paging at LAX, or behind the screen of a local multiplex? No.
But for the shear joy and pleasure of a very large domestic system - Yes, it's what I would take. Others may choose differently. But many who have heard them were quite impressed.
But for the shear joy and pleasure of a very large domestic system - Yes, it's what I would take. Others may choose differently. But many who have heard them were quite impressed.
Me too. In fact I was very surprised when I first heard them. It seemed so hard to believe that we hadn't come far at all since the 1920s. I "knew" the old stuff could not compete with the new. Those sort of shocks make a lasting impression.
Original DECCA SXL UK pressing.
That is a fabulous record. The reissue is not nearly as sonically impressive but still worth having for the performance.
David:
You are skipping over the 1930s Mirrophonic era of WE. These were multicells and bass bins. Obviously forerunners of the Shearer/MGM technology, which looks to be a cheaped-down version of the Mirrophonic.
I have read that impatience over WE's slow introduction of this new multi-way system led to the MGM/Shearer initiative. WE/AT&T was also unpopular as a monopolistic controlling entity with their hooks in everything.
When the 12 ft horn was introduced in 1928, 60-6k was deemed adequate bandwidth. Bandwidth requirements shifted in the ensuing decade, actually within a few years of The Jazz Singer. But that snail horn is still difficult to beat for 60-6k. Add a tweeter and you are good to go for home listening.
Western actually seems to have addressed this delay issue before they got out of theater in 1938. WE service bulletins provide precise location information for adding tweeters to address phasing/delay issues but that epic saga of the out-of-synch tap dancing sure was a good story to justify and jumpstart the Shearer project.
By 1935, the start of the MGM project, the Wide Range was already superseded by the new Western technology which was the model for the Shearer.
Look up Mirrophonic, study the configurations and you decide what is what.
594A driver, 26A horn are important keywords. Good Mirrophonic system info at moviemice.com
It seems like you are missing the part about the 600 pound WE elephant in the room while planning for the first Shearer systems was going down. The Shearer was an attempt to usurp the new WE topology.
I used to use all field coil Lansing, 287s and 415s, from the Shearer horn days. It is fabulous stuff but not quite up to the Western. Virtually identical to early Altec 288 and 416s, except for electrodynamic excitiation rather than AlNiCo mags.
I don't know anything about legal wrangling among WE and companies involved in Shearer but I am sure there was plenty going on. I think WE already had wind of the forthcoming anti-trust fiasco by the mid-late 30s and they were backing out of auditorium sound gracefully.
i know the equipment more than I know the corporate history part.
Tolerance? I can go on for 50 pages. I out-talked Romy once.
I never heard Line Magnetic. People seem to like it. That is about all I can say.
I'm curious what the hardcore Western users who dial into miniscule nuance would think. Read up on the listening session at the last ETF, where they compared an original 555, an original body with an ALE diaphragm, and a LM 555. That was the order in which they were ranked, for what that's worth.
I heard Chinese-sourced "Western Labo" drivers and they were not up to snuff. For example, we tried the Labo 597A in a 15A install and it was shrill and mechanical. Switching to a real 597A totally changed the mood. The 597A should be a soft whispery tweet not a brash spitty thing.
I heard a complete Western Labo 22A/555/4181 system in a shop and it was nasty. I seriously question whether the dealer hooked it up correctly.
It would be great if the Chinese stuff is really good, because that would allow a lot more people to experiment with the Wide Range approach.
Whether or not it sounds exactly like Western might not matter to many users and many wouldn't even know what that means.
GIP is really on to something. Last month I compared their mesh 555 and their 597A replica to real ones.
The GIP 597A was a bit smoother than the real one and I liked it better. The real one had a bit of grain that presented a cool vintage sort of effect but the GIP unit totally disappeared. Could hardly tell it was on until you turned it off. It was impressive.
The GIP mesh 555 was also smoother and, I think, better than an original pair in the 13A horns. The 12A were flown too high to change the drivers in this 12A/13A system (pics linked above).
I am not a big fan of quick switcheroo testing and I think it would be best to live with the drivers for a while then deliver a verdict. I was very impressed on a quick listen though.
Suzuki's thinking is that his GIP should sound like WE gear did when it was new, not like almost worn-out 80 year old units. Well who can say what new WE gear sounds like?
We have some NOS WECO units but they are still aged for 80 years even if unused. There is a lot of organic material in these drivers...lacquer, phenolics, paper. Who knows how aging affects them?
I also used GIPs enhanced TA4181 version in a few designs, along with their fancy gold tweeter. That stuff is the best. We listened to Ella and Louis on the big magnet 18" woofer and it was really decent as a near full-range! Most 15"s can barely play 1200hz. My Silbatone colleague jc morrison and I were blown away by that 18"--it weighs something like 80lbs! Awesome speaker.
I actually like this new design stuff because it is not a dead nuts copy of Western but an attempt to improve on it slightly. They try to take the next step while remaining within the classic framework.
The problem with GIP is that they cost as much as genuine WE does here.
GIP 555s would be at least twice as much as the Line Magnetics...and the LM's aren't exactly free either.
GIP makes toys for the 1%. Insane build quality and lots of very expensive R&D and test runs of cones and diaphragms. These guys are super perfectionists and I respect their efforts and count them as my friends, but I can't hope to buy any of their drivers.
If money is no object, GIP is worth a serious listen, but then you could probably afford genuine Western. Hey, buy both! Can I have your old car?
GIP also has a line which does not try to reproduce the looks and packaging of the vintage drivers but which uses a lot of the same parts. This is a less expensive series (whatever that means).
The main failing of the GIP line to me is that they use 1005s, which is not the greatest horn (I got distracting vertical lobing when I tried them at home, 15 cell doesn't do that) or milled hardwood radials. Japanese really love wood TAD/JBL style horns. They are working on new horns, including some for the 555.
I'd take a 26A or other large 300hz multicell personally, payable out of the lottery funds that I have not yet collected, for my 594s which I also do not yet own.
We will have a GIP system at Munich and I am going to try to work in a schedule for playing GIP drivers on the big 15A system so we can let the people listen and decide. Very curious to hear the listener responses. We'll see if the vintage fetish dominates perception!
Here's some pics of the GIP 555...
Attachments
wow they even duplicated the not so wonderful sand cast rear tub! Ha! You can see the mottle on the outside just like the original. Now THAT is attention to detail.
_-_-bear
_-_-bear
Pic of GIP 597A tweeter. Putting it out there for inspection.
This is probably their most famous and popular unit, thanks in part to the insane pricing and scarcity of working original 597As.
They did a lot of metallurgical analysis to get the materials as close as possible to the original. All mechanical specs are precisely 1:1 with the originals.
The main visual difference between originals and GIP is that GIP's "chrome" is shinier and their glossy black is smoother. I'm sure they mean it as a tribute.
Anyhow...this is what a 597A Loud Speaking Telephone looks like, folks.
This is probably their most famous and popular unit, thanks in part to the insane pricing and scarcity of working original 597As.
They did a lot of metallurgical analysis to get the materials as close as possible to the original. All mechanical specs are precisely 1:1 with the originals.
The main visual difference between originals and GIP is that GIP's "chrome" is shinier and their glossy black is smoother. I'm sure they mean it as a tribute.
Anyhow...this is what a 597A Loud Speaking Telephone looks like, folks.
Attachments
Last edited:
Me too Kevin...especially when comparing today's astronomically priced high-end drivers with 50 and 60 year old examples...the difference (to my ears at least) just doesn't justify such staggering price differential.
Not sure what the WE systems would have cost in the day, I'm sure they weren't cheap, but I shudder to think what the price tag of a modern-day equivalent would cost.
@Speaker Dave
Looking for something else, I found this paragraph at 435BE
------------------------------------------------
From the company’s inception, and through to the late 1970’s, JBL relied on compression driver technology that was virtually unchanged from that established by the engineers and scientists at ATT Labs in the 1920’s and 1930’s. There were basically two types of compression drivers in JBL’s catalog – the large format driver and the small format driver. The large format driver (best represented by the 375) used a massive Alnico magnet to energize a circuit that held a 4” diameter aluminum diaphragm. The small format drivers (175, LE85) used a 1 3/4” diameter aluminum diaphragm in significantly smaller motor structures. Both types used an integral aluminum surround drawn from the same single piece of aluminum that formed the diaphragm. From the company’s inception, and through to the late 1970’s, JBL relied on compression driver technology that was virtually unchanged from that established by the engineers and scientists at ATT Labs in the 1920’s and 1930’s. There were basically two types of compression drivers in JBL’s catalog – the large format driver and the small format driver. The large format driver (best represented by the 375) used a massive Alnico magnet to energize a circuit that held a 4” diameter aluminum diaphragm. The small format drivers (175, LE85) used a 1 3/4” diameter aluminum diaphragm in significantly smaller motor structures. Both types used an integral aluminum surround drawn from the same single piece of aluminum that formed the diaphragm.
-----------------------------
You can substitute ALTEC and their respective driver models for JBL and the story is still the same. The 594A is the grandaddy of the 375, 288, and on and on. WE 555 DNA lives on in many many later units too.
The amazing but true part of the story is that the prototypical WE units also set the performance benchmarks for the next 80 years.
---------------------------------
Well you won't be saving any money by switching to Western Electric, unless you are running MAGICO!
Even vintage ALTEC (my favorite) is getting more popular worldwide and more expensive. It used to be dumpster diver fun. Still a good deal though, sound per dollar, but you have to stick to the good ALTEC. Skip the PA and consumer stuff unless you know the lay of the land.
WE gear was not for sale...it was leased to theaters under service agreements. i don't know any
I saw a listing once in a trade magazine from the early 50s selling a complete Mirrophonic system, possibly including projector, for what calculated out to be $250,000 in 1990s money. That is about what they cost now on the collector market.
An old audio guy I used to hang with in DC in the 80s told me that a group of engineers at BuStandards, a hotbed of audio nuts back in the day, calculated the cost of a channel of Mirrophonic speaker to be $10000 in mid 50s money...that's $80,000 today.
He also told me the story that after WE got out of theater sound, they surplused out a mountain of compression drivers to be used as fill in the construction of a hydroelectric dam!
I see it like this....WE was always expensive, it is expensive now, and it will be more expensive in the future. It follows the big money. Rich Chinese are getting into it now.
Yeah...sucks to be poor...
Looking for something else, I found this paragraph at 435BE
------------------------------------------------
From the company’s inception, and through to the late 1970’s, JBL relied on compression driver technology that was virtually unchanged from that established by the engineers and scientists at ATT Labs in the 1920’s and 1930’s. There were basically two types of compression drivers in JBL’s catalog – the large format driver and the small format driver. The large format driver (best represented by the 375) used a massive Alnico magnet to energize a circuit that held a 4” diameter aluminum diaphragm. The small format drivers (175, LE85) used a 1 3/4” diameter aluminum diaphragm in significantly smaller motor structures. Both types used an integral aluminum surround drawn from the same single piece of aluminum that formed the diaphragm. From the company’s inception, and through to the late 1970’s, JBL relied on compression driver technology that was virtually unchanged from that established by the engineers and scientists at ATT Labs in the 1920’s and 1930’s. There were basically two types of compression drivers in JBL’s catalog – the large format driver and the small format driver. The large format driver (best represented by the 375) used a massive Alnico magnet to energize a circuit that held a 4” diameter aluminum diaphragm. The small format drivers (175, LE85) used a 1 3/4” diameter aluminum diaphragm in significantly smaller motor structures. Both types used an integral aluminum surround drawn from the same single piece of aluminum that formed the diaphragm.
-----------------------------
You can substitute ALTEC and their respective driver models for JBL and the story is still the same. The 594A is the grandaddy of the 375, 288, and on and on. WE 555 DNA lives on in many many later units too.
The amazing but true part of the story is that the prototypical WE units also set the performance benchmarks for the next 80 years.
---------------------------------
Well you won't be saving any money by switching to Western Electric, unless you are running MAGICO!
Even vintage ALTEC (my favorite) is getting more popular worldwide and more expensive. It used to be dumpster diver fun. Still a good deal though, sound per dollar, but you have to stick to the good ALTEC. Skip the PA and consumer stuff unless you know the lay of the land.
WE gear was not for sale...it was leased to theaters under service agreements. i don't know any
I saw a listing once in a trade magazine from the early 50s selling a complete Mirrophonic system, possibly including projector, for what calculated out to be $250,000 in 1990s money. That is about what they cost now on the collector market.
An old audio guy I used to hang with in DC in the 80s told me that a group of engineers at BuStandards, a hotbed of audio nuts back in the day, calculated the cost of a channel of Mirrophonic speaker to be $10000 in mid 50s money...that's $80,000 today.
He also told me the story that after WE got out of theater sound, they surplused out a mountain of compression drivers to be used as fill in the construction of a hydroelectric dam!
I see it like this....WE was always expensive, it is expensive now, and it will be more expensive in the future. It follows the big money. Rich Chinese are getting into it now.
Yeah...sucks to be poor...
Yeah, I read the whole thing while it was going on but felt like I had been sent naked pictures of Scarlett Johansson from News of the World but just couldn't look away... I'm still amazed you take the time to share your experience with everyone jumping on your throat over WE's musical legacy, mostly from guys who have never heard it (Romy, Jonathan Weiss, et al..) but I'm incredibly glad you do.
I am very curious about GIP and LM, mostly because I burned out many years ago on contemporary hi-fi and just can't stand most of what passes for state-of-the-art these days. What does interest me a lot though are the guys looking to history in humble deference without becoming Kool-Aid zealots. (I was once a Naimie *eww* so I know a bit about being a myopic dogmatic *******...) JC's circuits have floated my boat in a big way, and so it's great that GIP are trying to do something similar.
As WE stuff becomes more elusive it'll just become harder and harder to hear a properly set-up system, and no matter how you paint it, there's only going to be so many crazed individuals with the wherewithal to try and do what WE did.
And as much as I appreciate everything that comes from DIY culture, we're still mostly chasing some well-worn concepts with limited resources, and it's simply dwarfed by the intellectual and financial resources WE bought to the table, even now.
I hope to make it to Japan sometime this year for biz, but... well, is the recession over yet...?
Anyway, thanks for posting Joe. If it weren't for sociocultural anthropologists like you the hi-fi world would be so much less of a place to be. And a lot less fun.
BTW, you'd be very welcome to the last car we had. It was a Peugeot. The seats were unbelievably comfy but the sheet metal, well, it was only slightly less prone to rust than that of my very first car, an Alfa Sud, which would oxidize from the vapor on your breath. Good times.
Thanks for that, Joe, it is an interesting reference. I think Doug Button has done a lot of innovative drivers at JBL over the last few years.
Compression drivers are simple devices, essentially big woofer magnet structures with a phase plug. I think it is nice that we can trace a lineage from still available JBL units back to the Western Electric units. Still, I don't know if W.E. was the true orriginator of that basic layout or if others even came before. I do know that there are some surprising similarities between what the most advanced gramophones had going on (take a look at the cutaway views of the Orthophonic Victrolas) and the modern layout of horn/compression drivers.
The layout is the layout, and a modern JBL being a copy of a W.E. Is a bit like saying that a new 15" woofer is a copy of a McMurdo Silver unit. The real qualities and differences between all compression drivers come in the diaphragm design and construction and possibly minor variations in phase plug design.
I arrived at JBL soon after Fancher had developed the diamond surround. Previously the 375 response died above 10k. If you wanted a system to be full range you crossed over to bullet tweeter or the newer (slightly better) slot tweeter. Those drivers had notoriously variable frequency response. In addition, the thought of crossing a 20" or so deep device to another unit at 8kHz and expecting phase coherency is wishful thinking. So getting another half Octave out of the 4" diaphragm was a much appreciated step forward.
Once a compression approaches ideal performance (in frequency response on a terminated tube, and in output vs. distortion) the sound of the device is really down to the horn. This is where the real evolution of the last 80 years has been, in the understanding of how to design horns that can sound good. Changing to CD horns required a change of mindset, in that previously the ideal was that a horn/driver combo should be flat inherently flat. Since the better compression drivers had a 6 dB per Octave roll off, usually from 3kHz, a combo could only be flat with considerable HF beaming.
Developing a true CD horn meant accepting the HF roll off (that was always there in the power response) in the axial response. High midband sensitivity and the natural fall in the spectrum of music meant that electrical EQing to flat was no big deal. Still, it was a mindset change. 2 generations back, the multicell had been abandoned because, due to its somewhat flatter directivity, it was deemed to "lose the highs". The newer sectoral radials were beamy enough (and probably enough cheaper in construction cost) to look like progress.
I was there when Don Keele was developing the CD horns. In terms of polar curves, I have not seen anything in loudspeakers so closely approach an ideal of perfection, either before or since. Each polar of the next frequency layed right on top of the previous one. The polar shape was an ideal cardioid free from side lobes or odd frequency dependent contours. Midrange narrowing was cured and the beamwidth could be maintained up to as high a frequency as you would want. The geometry and relationship between wall contours and polar curve (and hence frequency response) was finally understood. Horn colorations dropped by an order of magnitude.
The 2360 I linked to previously is probably the best example of this generation. There has been significant evolution since.
Some of the first generation BiRadial models achieved great directional characteristics at the expense of frequency response. A narrow difraction gap maintains directivity to the top Octave but is at odds with LF smoothness. Too narrow and the discontinuity between the growth rate before the slot (the only exponential region of the designs) and after the slot, are too great. The theoretical cut off frequency goes down without the area to support it. Best sound quality requires getting a sensible compromise. The largest BiRadial designs sounded great but some of the smaller units were less good. The new Optimized Aperature Series pulls back a bit from the "perfect polars" pursuit and has a very fair compromise between LF smoothness and idealized beamwidth. They sound very good and will deliver that sound over a wide seating area.
The "single perfect horn" approach is losing favor in pro audio. Arrays are the new favorite and sophisticated software is allowing easy design of complex arrays that can perfectly cover any arbitrary audience. Cinemas, however, tend to have a regular layout and still work with fairly classic designs.
I'm only outlining how things evolved over a decade or so at JBL. Others companies were developing worthy counterparts during the period, and continue to do so.
No improvements since the designs of Western Electric? Really?
Cheers,
David
Hello David
And to add to your list we can add throatless compression drivers, improved phase plugs, rapid flare horns/ PT waveguides, better materials and processes. Also the second generation BiRadial horns used in the current Array line, Everest 2 and the K2 9800 and 9900. You also have the new 476 Be and Mg 4" compression driver.
@ Joe
It's one thing to say that the classic systems can sound quite good. Some certainly do. It's quite another to say there has been no meaningful or significant progress.
Are you going to be at the show in New York in April? I have to hear this for myself. If so are you going to have a digital option on the front end so people can hear their own music. Say a univeral player for CD/DVD A/SACD??
Rob🙂
And to add to your list we can add throatless compression drivers, improved phase plugs, rapid flare horns/ PT waveguides, better materials and processes. Also the second generation BiRadial horns used in the current Array line, Everest 2 and the K2 9800 and 9900. You also have the new 476 Be and Mg 4" compression driver.
@ Joe
It's one thing to say that the classic systems can sound quite good. Some certainly do. It's quite another to say there has been no meaningful or significant progress.
Are you going to be at the show in New York in April? I have to hear this for myself. If so are you going to have a digital option on the front end so people can hear their own music. Say a univeral player for CD/DVD A/SACD??
Rob🙂
Thanks David for that post. Nice to hear it from that perspective.
But really - David, Rob. You guys have to lay off the "no meaningful or significant progress" since W.E. chant. Who said that? Can you find it in this thread? Please quote who said that and where, I can't find it. The only ones I see saying it are the those claiming it's not true.
There have been claims that for a specific use (semi-domestic music listening) the W.E. sound quality has never been surpassed. That's all I can see the W.E. fans claiming. I don't think - and I have certainly never said - that means NO progress. Who said that? Thanks.
But really - David, Rob. You guys have to lay off the "no meaningful or significant progress" since W.E. chant. Who said that? Can you find it in this thread? Please quote who said that and where, I can't find it. The only ones I see saying it are the those claiming it's not true.
There have been claims that for a specific use (semi-domestic music listening) the W.E. sound quality has never been surpassed. That's all I can see the W.E. fans claiming. I don't think - and I have certainly never said - that means NO progress. Who said that? Thanks.
Besides what is implicit in the title of the thread, how would you define progress if, after 80 years of trying, the the W.E. sound quality "has never been surpassed".
That would sound like no progress to me.
David