Back in the 60's, paper cone drivers had precise quality control issues - apparently - that prevented their use in many critical broadcast environments. Things were different back then and cheapo Chinese drivers of great consistency just didn't exist. Paper formulations apparently depended on the person mixing the recipe and, while it probably didn't matter in domestic use, it definitely did to the BBC, hence the R&D into bextrene cones and so on. Just 'cos it doesn't fit in with the Acoustic Research/Allison mindset doesn't make it bollocks. What is bollocks is the reverence that these designs, done purely to satisfy the BBC needs of the time and definitely not 'neutral in later years, have in the far east especially.
If a vintage Allison or AR speaker floats yer boat, buy them, restore them and enjoy the lovely music they make and ignore Graham Audio & Stirling Broadcast, who make modern versions of these 1970's and 1980's BBC speakers. The likes of Spendor and Harbeth have moved on in recent years and both makers' speakers sound rather different and far less hobbled now by their distant ancestry.
Re: Wood or Wire?
-
Dr Bunsen Honeydew
- Posts: 30758
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:26 pm
- Location: Muppet Labs
- Has thanked: 0
- Been thanked: 48 times
Re: Wood or Wire
Well I am afraid this is complete bollocks from you, to say that paper cones were inconsistent is just repeating the BBC brainwash lies, and that is what it is, lies. Perhaps you need to read about the years of work on consistency that JBL and Altec did in the 1950;s that AR carried on. This post of yors is just 
and that is all it is and that makes me mad and just re-inforces the ignorance stuck in people minds and obviously in yours. The reason for Bextrene is Kef could never get paper right because they were and still are a bunch of ignorant bastards. To begin with the consistency in Bextrene cones was laughable, they could not get the mix or the pressing right, to the extent that for years they had to match cones to speakers to try and get two near enough the same. Why the feck do you think the B139 appeared, for similar reasons to the Leak Sandwich design, as the added mass gave the cone consistency - a form of doping!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I will not allow ignorance to go unchallenged on this form. Dave you are still just repeating the folklaw and the BBC Done correctly good paper cones like the top JBLs and Altecs are the finest cones you can use, why do you think they cost so much. They take a long time and have to be hand layered, there used to be a JBL vid on youtube a few years ago of them doing it, but I haven't seen it for a while. You want a company that couldn't get paper cones to anywhere near that standard then look to Tannoy 
and that is all it is and that makes me mad and just re-inforces the ignorance stuck in people minds and obviously in yours. The reason for Bextrene is Kef could never get paper right because they were and still are a bunch of ignorant bastards. To begin with the consistency in Bextrene cones was laughable, they could not get the mix or the pressing right, to the extent that for years they had to match cones to speakers to try and get two near enough the same. Why the feck do you think the B139 appeared, for similar reasons to the Leak Sandwich design, as the added mass gave the cone consistency - a form of doping!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I will not allow ignorance to go unchallenged on this form. Dave you are still just repeating the folklaw and the BBC
Done correctly good paper cones like the top JBLs and Altecs are the finest cones you can use, why do you think they cost so much. They take a long time and have to be hand layered, there used to be a JBL vid on youtube a few years ago of them doing it, but I haven't seen it for a while. You want a company that couldn't get paper cones to anywhere near that standard then look to Tannoy -
_D_S_J_R_
- Posts: 4185
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:53 am
- Location: The end of the road in Suffolk Coastal.
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
Re: Wood or Wire
I disagree about it all being bollocks and I'm as entitled to my experiences and memories as anyone else. Sharing these experiences can be a help to people to make their own mind up and hopefully listen for themselves.
I'm thinking back to the mid to late 60's. yes, I was fairly young then, but I listened and read and listened again and was lucky to have regular trips to Watford, where there was a music/Hifi store called Hammonds, and where all the best gear of the times were available, this being long before KJ Enterprises/Leisuresound, IMF, Spendor and all the others. Compared to Goodmans, Wharfedale, Mordaunt Short and Celestion and with the sole exception of the tricky Quad 57's, KEF always sounded better to me on spoken and sung voice (Hammonds was very 'VHF Home Service' back then).
So back in the late 60's, what was available to the likes of the BBC, where accuracy of spoken voice was as important as loads of volume on their biggest monitors. It's my thought that cinema speakers had to be adapted and I believe EMI used large cabs with Altec Duplex? drivers in (with the 'honeycomb' tweeter waveguides in front of the main driver) and these would have been deemed too coloured = EMI looked to have gone over to custom big Quad 303 driven Tannoys by 1970 (I have a pic to prove it regarding Abbey Rd Studio 2). JBL would have been expensive and anyway, huge L200 apart, their boxes were awful I thought from midrange upwards back then. As for Acoustic Research, I don't remember when they began to be represented in the UK (very late 60's?), but they weren't any great shakes by then, the sound coloured, dry in perspective and very dull. I remember the AR3a sounding nasal, 'dry' and with not much top when I first heard it, but the 3a Improved version was rather better and anyway, the 10Pi model was amazingly good and way removed from those AR's of several years before - in my opinion and experience. The first AR's which blew me away were the LST's and I'm so glad I annoyed everyone at KJ Watford in getting the bloody things out - large, heavy and rather different in design, these were perfect for larger rooms but had a more modern balance than the previous models I thought. The only older UK speakers that sounded good to me were Ditton 66's and Quad 57's and neither were universal in application. Tannoys were silly-coloured in the early 70's, with tinsel for treble and a 'dirty' sounding midband - speech was laughable, although I'm sure that modern restoration and crossovers sort most if not all of this out.
Paper cones WERE difficult to make consistently and if one main person who made the formula up went sick, it was difficult for someone else to step in and take over. JBL may have got it to a fine art, but in the late 60's UK speaker market, I'm not sure that was relevant to be honest as these speakers would have been far too expensive assuming they were available at all. These days, it's all computer monitored, so not at all an issue.
here's a link to JBL late 60's monitors with some history. Not sure how many of the larger ones came here to the UK, although the 4310 was known and disliked for its squawky midrange - http://www.audioheritage.org/html/histo ... /1960s.htm
So, where does this leave old Auntie Beeb? ALL of their monitors, big and small, were customised for THEIR OWN PURPOSES! The LS3 models were NOT first grade monitors and when they found a niche for the then new Spendor BC1 (the sister LS3/6 followed on but not many were used apparently), these were used for general sound duties and *usually* placed hanging from the ceiling around five feet off the ground - no bass 'honk' when used like this. I believe the BC1 is related to the mono wedge shaped sideways mounted corner/ceiling speaker (LS3/4?) used in vans before the LS3/5A came along, but can't be sure. BC2 and BC3's were domestic spinoffs I think, so nothing really to do with BBC monitors, although the later improved BC2/SA2/Prelude driver as mine now has was used as a drop-in replacement for one of the BBC niche speakers in the 80's I believe - the BC1 was phased out at the BBC in 1987 I think. As for the bigger main monitors, I've only heard LS5/5's once or twice years ago, but I liked them a lot I remember. These were sat on 24" or so stands and sited in properly designed studios, so no idea how they'd fare in a relatively horrible domestic environment. BC1's and all their cousins from Rogers were usually sat FAR TOO LOW on their tiny floor-trolleys and where the BC1 actually got better as it went along, Rogers speakers got worse (Studio 1's and so on, which boomed badly).
So you see, it's not all cut and dried in my book. AR made some lovely endearing speakers in the mid 70's based on the rather dull sounding 60's ancestors (I read the treble was deliberately set down on these for their home market and shall have to find the reviews of the period). Ditton 66 apart, Celestion were rather old fashioned when I joined KJ in 1974 and so were Goodmans, although I'd like to hear Goodwoods and Magnum K's off the floor, as the KEF Cadenza and Concerto took on a new lease of life used thus. OK, my comments above may not jive with some others here, but they are as genuine as I could give from actual experience of the speakers themselves and not just regurgitated from things I've read here and there.
Anyway, all boring to most of you I suspect, but it's interesting for me to remember, research further and learn afresh
I'm thinking back to the mid to late 60's. yes, I was fairly young then, but I listened and read and listened again and was lucky to have regular trips to Watford, where there was a music/Hifi store called Hammonds, and where all the best gear of the times were available, this being long before KJ Enterprises/Leisuresound, IMF, Spendor and all the others. Compared to Goodmans, Wharfedale, Mordaunt Short and Celestion and with the sole exception of the tricky Quad 57's, KEF always sounded better to me on spoken and sung voice (Hammonds was very 'VHF Home Service' back then).
So back in the late 60's, what was available to the likes of the BBC, where accuracy of spoken voice was as important as loads of volume on their biggest monitors. It's my thought that cinema speakers had to be adapted and I believe EMI used large cabs with Altec Duplex? drivers in (with the 'honeycomb' tweeter waveguides in front of the main driver) and these would have been deemed too coloured = EMI looked to have gone over to custom big Quad 303 driven Tannoys by 1970 (I have a pic to prove it regarding Abbey Rd Studio 2). JBL would have been expensive and anyway, huge L200 apart, their boxes were awful I thought from midrange upwards back then. As for Acoustic Research, I don't remember when they began to be represented in the UK (very late 60's?), but they weren't any great shakes by then, the sound coloured, dry in perspective and very dull. I remember the AR3a sounding nasal, 'dry' and with not much top when I first heard it, but the 3a Improved version was rather better and anyway, the 10Pi model was amazingly good and way removed from those AR's of several years before - in my opinion and experience. The first AR's which blew me away were the LST's and I'm so glad I annoyed everyone at KJ Watford in getting the bloody things out - large, heavy and rather different in design, these were perfect for larger rooms but had a more modern balance than the previous models I thought. The only older UK speakers that sounded good to me were Ditton 66's and Quad 57's and neither were universal in application. Tannoys were silly-coloured in the early 70's, with tinsel for treble and a 'dirty' sounding midband - speech was laughable, although I'm sure that modern restoration and crossovers sort most if not all of this out.
Paper cones WERE difficult to make consistently and if one main person who made the formula up went sick, it was difficult for someone else to step in and take over. JBL may have got it to a fine art, but in the late 60's UK speaker market, I'm not sure that was relevant to be honest as these speakers would have been far too expensive assuming they were available at all. These days, it's all computer monitored, so not at all an issue.
here's a link to JBL late 60's monitors with some history. Not sure how many of the larger ones came here to the UK, although the 4310 was known and disliked for its squawky midrange - http://www.audioheritage.org/html/histo ... /1960s.htm
So, where does this leave old Auntie Beeb? ALL of their monitors, big and small, were customised for THEIR OWN PURPOSES! The LS3 models were NOT first grade monitors and when they found a niche for the then new Spendor BC1 (the sister LS3/6 followed on but not many were used apparently), these were used for general sound duties and *usually* placed hanging from the ceiling around five feet off the ground - no bass 'honk' when used like this. I believe the BC1 is related to the mono wedge shaped sideways mounted corner/ceiling speaker (LS3/4?) used in vans before the LS3/5A came along, but can't be sure. BC2 and BC3's were domestic spinoffs I think, so nothing really to do with BBC monitors, although the later improved BC2/SA2/Prelude driver as mine now has was used as a drop-in replacement for one of the BBC niche speakers in the 80's I believe - the BC1 was phased out at the BBC in 1987 I think. As for the bigger main monitors, I've only heard LS5/5's once or twice years ago, but I liked them a lot I remember. These were sat on 24" or so stands and sited in properly designed studios, so no idea how they'd fare in a relatively horrible domestic environment. BC1's and all their cousins from Rogers were usually sat FAR TOO LOW on their tiny floor-trolleys and where the BC1 actually got better as it went along, Rogers speakers got worse (Studio 1's and so on, which boomed badly).
So you see, it's not all cut and dried in my book. AR made some lovely endearing speakers in the mid 70's based on the rather dull sounding 60's ancestors (I read the treble was deliberately set down on these for their home market and shall have to find the reviews of the period). Ditton 66 apart, Celestion were rather old fashioned when I joined KJ in 1974 and so were Goodmans, although I'd like to hear Goodwoods and Magnum K's off the floor, as the KEF Cadenza and Concerto took on a new lease of life used thus. OK, my comments above may not jive with some others here, but they are as genuine as I could give from actual experience of the speakers themselves and not just regurgitated from things I've read here and there.
Anyway, all boring to most of you I suspect, but it's interesting for me to remember, research further and learn afresh
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way...The time has gone, The song is over, Thought I'd something more to say...
-
Daniel Quinn
- Posts: 8586
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:16 am
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
Re: Wood or Wire
Your memory appears to be playing tricks with you . By my arithmetic , you were between 10 and 15 years of age in the mid to late sixties and yet you were able to undertake an accurate assessment of paper coned drivers !
Also - you offer no evidence that paper drivers were anymore difficult to produce consistently than any other material available at the time .
Also - you offer no evidence that paper drivers were anymore difficult to produce consistently than any other material available at the time .
-
_D_S_J_R_
- Posts: 4185
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:53 am
- Location: The end of the road in Suffolk Coastal.
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
Re: Wood or Wire
I was born in 1957 and have been into music and the reproduction gear practically since I could toddle. I bought Hi Fi Sound magazine since 1967 and read it from cover to cover, only chucking what was left of them as they all but stuck together in my parent's loft when my Dad moved in 1999. I alsod have vivid memory impressions of the 'sound comparisons' of many speakers I heard in the late 60's/early 70's, hence my observations, which you're welcome to take or leave. I first properly entered the audio industry in 1973 as a 'Saturday boy' and went to KJ Watford in mid 1974, where I met Alfafan who posts here.
Young ears are far better than older ones and before any 'conditioning,' that may have occurred later on, listening to speech on a speaker is a good way of telling what's going on. Bigger early KEFs sounded a lot less like 'boxes' - to me - than equivalent UK made alternatives of the period and subsequent work in a well-stocked dealers re-enforced my youthful opinions - and these old UK alternatives were rapidly being phased out in '74.
Look up for yourself about paper cones being difficult to make consistently - and the Doc confirmed that Tannoy had difficulties if you read his post above. he also said how JBL took huge pride in preparing theirs, neither of these statements directly contradicting mine. I just get irritated over the 'BBC Bollocks' bit, that's all - many different ways to reproduce music in the home and studio. Hell, some people swear by electrostatic speakers and I've had many happy hours with Quad 57's. Furthermore, I've enjoyed Cubes at the Doc's place and these fly in the face of many traditional speaker design methods, yet still make nice noises.
Some well educated 'BBC Bollocks' here - http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1967-57.pdf These were apparently the last proper 'neutral' monitors the BBC ever had made for them, the 5/8 and 5/9 being rather sucked-out in the upper midrange, but well suited to their needs of the 90's.
Young ears are far better than older ones and before any 'conditioning,' that may have occurred later on, listening to speech on a speaker is a good way of telling what's going on. Bigger early KEFs sounded a lot less like 'boxes' - to me - than equivalent UK made alternatives of the period and subsequent work in a well-stocked dealers re-enforced my youthful opinions - and these old UK alternatives were rapidly being phased out in '74.
Look up for yourself about paper cones being difficult to make consistently - and the Doc confirmed that Tannoy had difficulties if you read his post above. he also said how JBL took huge pride in preparing theirs, neither of these statements directly contradicting mine. I just get irritated over the 'BBC Bollocks' bit, that's all - many different ways to reproduce music in the home and studio. Hell, some people swear by electrostatic speakers and I've had many happy hours with Quad 57's. Furthermore, I've enjoyed Cubes at the Doc's place and these fly in the face of many traditional speaker design methods, yet still make nice noises.
Some well educated 'BBC Bollocks' here - http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/reports/1967-57.pdf These were apparently the last proper 'neutral' monitors the BBC ever had made for them, the 5/8 and 5/9 being rather sucked-out in the upper midrange, but well suited to their needs of the 90's.
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way...The time has gone, The song is over, Thought I'd something more to say...
Re: Wood or Wire
Hell Dave thats almost a rant of Pinkie like proportions there...... 
But tell it like ya see it....
90% of speakers are probably shite though.
But tell it like ya see it....
90% of speakers are probably shite though.
-
Daniel Quinn
- Posts: 8586
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:16 am
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
Re: Wood or Wire
The Doc mentioned Tannoy because they were shit. You are confusing some people having issues with paper drivers because they are incompetent with an inherent problem of paper drivers.
listening to speech on a speaker is not a good way to assess it. Speakers are for playing music, listen to music on them.
A speaker that is good a voices isn't worth shit , hell most of the voices I listen to are screeching through amplification , the last thing they are is natural .
listening to speech on a speaker is not a good way to assess it. Speakers are for playing music, listen to music on them.
A speaker that is good a voices isn't worth shit , hell most of the voices I listen to are screeching through amplification , the last thing they are is natural .
Re: Wood or Wire
Dan....You've obviously never heard "The Archers" or "Dr Findlay's Casebook" played through a pair of 15ohm LS3/A's.
-
_D_S_J_R_
- Posts: 4185
- Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2014 9:53 am
- Location: The end of the road in Suffolk Coastal.
- Has thanked: 10 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
Re: Wood or Wire
Jammy, you've got it - and it obviously doesn't have to be LS3/5A's either, as many other speakers made from all kinds of sh*t 'do' voices well too. 
A speaker that copes well with speech, copes well with other 'acoustic' instruments too, believe it or not. It's my experience that if a speaker copes well with acoustic instruments, then it will with electronically generated ones as well, as long as it can take the power. Works for me.
Apologies chaps, this is an obits thread. Perhaps a 'BBC Bollocks' thread should be started and these recent rants and posts be taken there.
I can't believe I read the above, but I just did and even quoted it tooDaniel Quinn wrote:The Doc mentioned Tannoy because they were shit. You are confusing some people having issues with paper drivers because they are incompetent with an inherent problem of paper drivers.
listening to speech on a speaker is not a good way to assess it. Speakers are for playing music, listen to music on them.
A speaker that is good a voices isn't worth shit , hell most of the voices I listen to are screeching through amplification , the last thing they are is natural .
A speaker that copes well with speech, copes well with other 'acoustic' instruments too, believe it or not. It's my experience that if a speaker copes well with acoustic instruments, then it will with electronically generated ones as well, as long as it can take the power. Works for me.
Apologies chaps, this is an obits thread. Perhaps a 'BBC Bollocks' thread should be started and these recent rants and posts be taken there.
Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way...The time has gone, The song is over, Thought I'd something more to say...
-
Daniel Quinn
- Posts: 8586
- Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2012 7:16 am
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 399 times
Re: Wood or Wire
The human voice as a distinct and narrow frequency response . A speaker playing just a human voice will tell you nothing , let alone how well it will portray acoustic instruments .
Perhaps you could care to explain to me how a speaker sounding good with a human voice can be relied upon to do good acoustic music . However if your explanation is essentially "in my experience" then I anint interested .
When I was building my own speakers and experimenting with damping and crossovers and made the mistake to trying to fine tune by listening to radio 4 and trying to get the voices to sound a natural as possible without boxy resonances or coloration , but once you played music from it , it was a disaster .
As it so happens - doc mods make voices sound good in any event but that is because of the inherent qualities of a mass loaded undamped cabinet and crossover less drivers .
voicing a speaker for voices , with thin cabinets and strategic damping is not a good idea unless you listen to radio 4.
Perhaps you could care to explain to me how a speaker sounding good with a human voice can be relied upon to do good acoustic music . However if your explanation is essentially "in my experience" then I anint interested .
When I was building my own speakers and experimenting with damping and crossovers and made the mistake to trying to fine tune by listening to radio 4 and trying to get the voices to sound a natural as possible without boxy resonances or coloration , but once you played music from it , it was a disaster .
As it so happens - doc mods make voices sound good in any event but that is because of the inherent qualities of a mass loaded undamped cabinet and crossover less drivers .
voicing a speaker for voices , with thin cabinets and strategic damping is not a good idea unless you listen to radio 4.