music quality of speakers in the 70's vs now

Originally Posted by raaizin
Originally Posted by sloinker
Anybody that thinks that modern home speakers and modern multi channel electronics sound better than home hi-fi sytems of the 1970's and 1980's don't have a grasp on reality. MP3...really?

Sorry I got you so worked up, life is too short. I was talking about what the average person listened to not some audiophile and I never mentioned MP3.

But MP3 is basically all you get today.....
 
If anyone wants a real eye opener, go to Ebay or Craigslist and look at the asking prices for the vintage receivers from the mid 70's, especially the 100 watts per channel and up. $1000 to $2000 is not uncommon. Wish I would of went around in the mid 80's and picked these up from garage sales.
 
Originally Posted by uc50ic4more
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
High end home audio loudspeakers from the 70s blow away the mass-fi big box junk made today.


"High end" versus "mass-produced" is rarely a fair comparison. For any given dollar, despite technology having less influence over the challenges (mass, acoustics) manufacturers face than in other industries, I'll take a dollar's worth of a newer speaker today than the equivalent dollar's worth from 40 years ago. This is both from build- and sound-quality perspectives.

I used to run a recording studio and I have several 60-year-old microphones and mic amps and EQ's and such (which will fund my retirement in time) and I am the first guy to preach "They don't make 'em like they used to"; but I am also reminded of an old saying tossed around by audio engineers when some long-forgotten piece of garbage EQ from 1965 is going for $3000 on Ebay:

"There are two kinds of fools. One says 'This is old and therefore good' and the other says 'This is new and therefore better'".


I guess the best comparison would be is back then there were dedicated stereo shops everywhere that sold high-end equipment. These places have all but disappeared and have been replaced by stores like Best Buy.
 
Also, those of us who grew up with '70's speakers still like the way they sound. Despite the fact that many of them don't actually test all that well when using objective criteria.

And that's the interesting thing about all of this. We can have speakers with amazingly flat frequency response, computer designed and tested. Yet they don't sound great when compared to others. Good statistics don't equal good sound.

I tend to prefer speakers with "punchy" midbass for sharp sounding drums, and larger sealed woofers for adequate low frequencies. I also tend to like silk dome tweeters. Interestingly, ported speakers produce more bass, but I generally don't like way they sound.
 
Originally Posted by Amkeer
I would say the quality of the speakers today is far superior than what was put out in the 70's and 80's. I have Polk speakers now and they have been excellent for the past 6 years. The fit and finish from the cabinet to the cone is great! I can't tell you how many speakers and cabinets I blew up over the years. I have had the cabinets split at the joints, cones dry rot, tweeters fry. I listen to music loud and the equipment needs to perform. I have auxiliary fans on my Yamaha receiver as that thing generates some heat at high volumes.



I bumped into a video just perusing around on stereo stuff the other day. It explained the design character of my Polk speakers as a neat surprise I didn't know about. Cabinets inspired by the guitar with rolled or rounded edges and woodgrain, gloss piano black surfaces on the baffle and high shine chrome like the metal parts on a guitar. They didn't come right out and say it but I think they are telling me- " If your grill covers are on your speakers, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG !! "

Some of that inspiration , beauty and tech is hiding back there.



Originally Posted by 86cutlass307
I don't want to start a badge warfare battle but, Pioneer had 3 standout floor speaker sets form that time. HPM-150, HPM-1500, HPM-1100. Finding quality preserved/maintained sets today is very hard...not impossible though. They did take a bit of power to sound their best though; 100 - 200 or so watts. They had great frequency response range, clear on the low end and not harsh on the top end. The 150's were always my favorite. All 3 weighed in the range of 80 - 95 lbs. each. You had to be young to move them by yourself. Personally, I have yet to hear anything modern that compares to either of these 3 titans of the stereo war years.


Just seeing HPM kicked it in for me. I remember those as a hot item for a long time. Had friends in the big box store business, mid to late 70's and on.



Originally Posted by MCompact
I use Klipsch KG4 floor standing sspeakers for the LF and RF channels in my primary HTS and my Denon receiver has a two channel "Pure" mode that I use to listen to music.



I was just leaving the industry when those came out. We were a strong Klipsch store and those appealed to the critical listing client more so than the PA loud rock n roll format that was their bread and butter. In those days, Klipsch were heavily slighted by 'audiophiles' yet as our store catered to the philes, we didn't alienate the family-types who wanted mid to high end gear nor the British and east coast influenced speakers that were anything but a horn. I also use my pure setting on the Marantz a lot with music because my default is the cinema mode for movies or voices on the news. The imagining and spacial qualities open up a lot on much of what I listen to.
Boston Acoustic's were strong for us too. I felt like they were on the order of Polk at the time, slightly more efficient, warmer bass but not boomy and about 15% better on price. If you asked me then, I'd have said I'll end up with Boston Acoustic's soon if not later in life as my ultimate choice.
 
Last edited:
Worked in retail electronics for many years 1976-1995. After about 2 years of trying to sell specs, I realized that only the nerds cared about the best possible specs. Everyone else bought the cute face. I recall a certain piece of car audio, that by just changing the face plate on the display, sales quadrupled. We called it the Mae West effect.
 
Originally Posted by uc50ic4more
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
The highest end audiophile speakers had actual separate component crossover networks.

If you're passively separating audio into bandwidths at the speaker level, as opposed to at a line level and amplifying discreetly, I'd hesitate to use the word "audiophile".

That is not an informed or intelligent remark.
 
Originally Posted by Hermann
Worked in retail electronics for many years 1976-1995. After about 2 years of trying to sell specs, I realized that only the nerds cared about the best possible specs. Everyone else bought the cute face. I recall a certain piece of car audio, that by just changing the face plate on the display, sales quadrupled. We called it the Mae West effect.




And the specs were mostly not helpful anyway. They were measuring the wrong things.

Working to reduce steady state THD to below 0.00 was Leading to Poor sound.

Like saying, "That girl is HOT! She is 5' 7 and weighs 120 Lbs with Blond hair."

Tells me little of the experience as a whole...
 
Originally Posted by Lubener
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
High end home audio loudspeakers from the 70s blow away the mass-fi big box junk made today.

Totally agree!


I agree too.
With that said, we use the words "high end" even back in the 70s/80s the popular low end garbage stuff was still all over the place, stuff sold in department stores.

Yet then, we had the option to go to countless high end audio stores to pick out better stuff. Those places were all over the place, even in shopping malls.
Now, all we have a choice of is garbage, unless you really hunt around for it and even then, the selection is limited.
Digital music has set back, not advanced audio reproduction in the sense, that the public doesnt know what good audio is, all digital has done is allowed manufacturers to make cheap stuff in small packages with HUGE markups loaded with overblown bass that sounds nothing like the real thing.

Dont get me wrong, digital audio is a terrific source but its become almost impossible to reasonably buy equipment to play it back on. When I say digital, CDs and HiRes audio, sadly with the advent of MP3s and XM radio (FAR worse) the young have been dumbed down. Yet, even if it had to be MP3, the sound could be very acceptable on good equipment.

The young do not know what real audio sounds like, they are drones to mass marketing, god, just pick up a set of headphones in Best Buy, the manufactures alter the sound with overblown bass to sell them, it doesnt matter if the artist intended that or not, I had to really search hard for headphones/earphones.earplugs that dont do this.. Do you ever see the words "accurate reproduction" on a box? No, you see the words "extra bass" ... like hello?

I can say one thing that has improved is automobile audio but then again, IC and processors make it cheap to add acceptable audio for a vehicle costing over $30,000 .
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by alarmguy

I agree too.
With that said, we use the words "high end" even back in the 70s/80s the popular low end garbage stuff was still all over the place, stuff sold in department stores.

Yet then, we had the option to go to countless high end audio stores to pick out better stuff. Those places were all over the place, even in shopping malls.
Now, all we have a choice of is garbage, unless you really hunt around for it and even then, the selection is limited.
Digital music has set back, not advanced audio reproduction in the sense, that the public doesnt know what good audio is, all digital has done is allowed manufacturers to make cheap stuff in small packages with HUGE markups loaded with overblown bass that sounds nothing like the real thing.

Dont get me wrong, digital audio is a terrific source but its become almost impossible to reasonably buy equipment to play it back on. When I say digital, CDs and HiRes audio, sadly with the advent of MP3s and XM radio (FAR worse) the young have been dumbed down. Yet, even if it had to be MP3, the sound could be very acceptable on good equipment.

The young do not know what real audio sounds like, they are drones to mass marketing, god, just pick up a set of headphones in Best Buy, the manufactures alter the sound with overblown bass to sell them, it doesnt matter if the artist intended that or not, I had to really search hard for headphones/earphones.earplugs that dont do this.. Do you ever see the words "accurate reproduction" on a box? No, you see the words "extra bass" ... like hello?

I can say one thing that has improved is automobile audio but then again, IC and processors make it cheap to add acceptable audio for a vehicle costing over $30,000 .


This is the biggest load of self-important crap I've read.

There is an entire generation who grew up listening to music on AM through a hand-held transistor radio or in a car with a single paper-cone woofer with a whizzer tweeter.

Artists and engineers of the era tell stories about having studios set up low powered radio transmitters so they can listen to a playback of the mix from their car in the parking lot, because that's where their audience was going to hear it.

This wasn't high quality audio. This wasn't "accurate reproduction". You know what though? The music was fantastic and it was enjoyed in the moment, like music should be, without regard to whether you're listening to it as the "artist intended".

If your requisite for listening to music is thousands of dollars in hi-fi, you love the equipment, not the music, which, I guess, would make you a "drone to mass marketing".
 
Originally Posted by alarmguy
even back in the 70s/80s the popular low end garbage stuff was still all over the place, stuff sold in department stores.


Oh yeah haha! I forgot about the Soundesign and Emerson crap the drug stores sold back then haha! Pilot was another crappy one.
 
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
Originally Posted by alarmguy
even back in the 70s/80s the popular low end garbage stuff was still all over the place, stuff sold in department stores.


Oh yeah haha! I forgot about the Soundesign and Emerson crap the drug stores sold back then haha! Pilot was another crappy one.




I don't remember pilot but I remember sounddesign and Emerson.
I have no idea what horsepower is talking about I think maybe he's going a little further back in time than I was🙃
I never spent thousands of dollars on audio equipment but I bought quality components at good prices.
Two of the speakers I had since around 1992 are still my right and left front center channel channels of my home entertainment system Driven by a reasonably priced Yamaha 5.1 receiver which is getting on in age but still sounds awesome. The speakers at the time cost less than $500 and are paradigm speakers.
The center and rear channels are newer JBL studio series I believe.
But never mind all of that the younger generation cannot walk and audio stories like we used to be able to do and hear what an accurate sounding system sounds like.
Some of these products were entry-level products but still showcased because they came from independent companies looking to make a name for themselves.

A lot of my previous posts had to do with pricey headphones with manufacturer created sound curves to emphasize frequencies instead of a solid flat response that you can adjust if you wish to.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Cujet
Also, those of us who grew up with '70's speakers still like the way they sound. Despite the fact that many of them don't actually test all that well when using objective criteria.

And that's the interesting thing about all of this. We can have speakers with amazingly flat frequency response, computer designed and tested. Yet they don't sound great when compared to others. Good statistics don't equal good sound.

I tend to prefer speakers with "punchy" midbass for sharp sounding drums, and larger sealed woofers for adequate low frequencies. I also tend to like silk dome tweeters. Interestingly, ported speakers produce more bass, but I generally don't like way they sound.

Ported or bass reflex speakers basically suck. I think it has to do with how slow sound travels. It has a tendancy to muddle up the lower frequencies and put it out of time with the rest of the music. I twice built my own speakers, the first time as bass reflex as they are supposed to be more efficient. The second time, I rebuilt with the same drivers and got rid of the open port. Huge difference.
 
Originally Posted by ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted by uc50ic4more
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
The highest end audiophile speakers had actual separate component crossover networks.

If you're passively separating audio into bandwidths at the speaker level, as opposed to at a line level and amplifying discreetly, I'd hesitate to use the word "audiophile".

That is not an informed or intelligent remark.



They are both talking about Active Crossovers, like these:
https://bryston.com/model-t-active/
 
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
High end home audio loudspeakers from the 70s blow away the mass-fi big box junk made today.

No. It's called Nostalgia.
 
This isn't from the 70s,but good lord, look at some of these systems!!
laugh.gif


https://moneyinc.com/10-incredible-sound-systems-costing-north-of-100000/
 
Originally Posted by philipp10
Originally Posted by Cujet
Also, those of us who grew up with '70's speakers still like the way they sound. Despite the fact that many of them don't actually test all that well when using objective criteria.

And that's the interesting thing about all of this. We can have speakers with amazingly flat frequency response, computer designed and tested. Yet they don't sound great when compared to others. Good statistics don't equal good sound.

I tend to prefer speakers with "punchy" midbass for sharp sounding drums, and larger sealed woofers for adequate low frequencies. I also tend to like silk dome tweeters. Interestingly, ported speakers produce more bass, but I generally don't like way they sound.

Ported or bass reflex speakers basically suck. I think it has to do with how slow sound travels. It has a tendancy to muddle up the lower frequencies and put it out of time with the rest of the music. I twice built my own speakers, the first time as bass reflex as they are supposed to be more efficient. The second time, I rebuilt with the same drivers and got rid of the open port. Huge difference.


You did it wrong. Even if yuo folled the "instructions" Wrong Q factor. But I will say that I like a passive radiator better than port.

I like small air suspension. speakers ( 4-7"0 but not large ones. Very inefficient Too Power hungry.

Think of ported speakers like "turbo" on a car they are taking waste energy and transforming it to useful and intended energy.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by dave1251
Originally Posted by aquariuscsm
High end home audio loudspeakers from the 70s blow away the mass-fi big box junk made today.

No. It's called Nostalgia.


Altec loudspeakers from the 1970s:
[Linked Image]

Altec Best Buy current crapola:
[Linked Image]


Drops mic, bows,and walks away
thankyou2.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Figuring out speakers/audio for an old car with a low tech radio
Replies
18
Views
1K
DriveHard
OVERKILL
Heavys headphones
Replies
13
Views
1K
ripcord
1
In spirit of the "70's speaker vs. now" thread...
2 3
Replies
59
Views
6K
DriveHard
M
A week with a 2021 BMW X3e (hybrid)
Replies
10
Views
1K
edyvw
Falcon_LS
Review: 2025 BMW 530i
Replies
6
Views
4K
bighead2586
Back
Top Bottom