Jump to content

The Top-Ten, Most-Influential Speakers of the Last 50 Years


tysontom

Recommended Posts

Interesting and well-written article about famous speakers and their influence on the high-fidelity speaker industry. What do you think are the most influential speakers; not necessarily the most famous or smoothest or those with the lowest distortion, but speakers that influenced the industry with changes over time.

http://www.audioholics.com/loudspeaker-design/most-influential-speakers

Following is an incomplete [and random] list of several noteworthy and influential loudspeakers over the past 50-60 years. Please add to the list. It's difficult to know which ones would be the most influential other than, of course, the AR-1/AR-3/AR-3a series and how it completely changed the industry in the 1950s and 1960s. Prior to that, speakers such as the big Bozak B310B, JBL Hartsfield and Electro-Voice Patrician, among others, helped to change the industry immediately after WWII from a components-based setup to more factory-built designs. The Klipschorn was very influential, and the Altec VOTT and similar designs also were very influential. The Altec Lansing 604 coaxial was a very influential speaker, among others of this type. Quad's ESL was very important, early on.

The Advent Loudspeaker

Quad ESL Electrostatic

Acoustech/KLH Nine Electrostatics

KLH Six/AR-2a/AR-2ax

AR-1/AR-3/AR-3a/KLH Four/KLH Seven/KLH Seventeen

B&W 801 Series

KLH Six/Four/Five/Seventeen

AR-4x/AR-6/AR-7

Infinity Servo-Static/IRS

Altec Lansing VOTT

Altec Lansing 604 Duplex

AR9/AR9Ls

KEF 104

KEF 107

Celestion SL-600

Klipschorn

JBL Hartsfield

JBL Ranger Paragon

JBL L100

Jensen Imperial

Jensen G610B

Bose 901

Allison: One/Three/IC20/AR-LST

E-V Patrician

Stephens Trusonic

Electro-Voice Interface A

University Classic/Classic MkII

University 315C

Bozak B310B Concert Grand

Dahlquist DQ-10

Rogers LS3/5A

Magnepan Magneplanar

Dynaco A25 Aperiodic

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complex topic, to be sure.

Re the AMT Air Motion Transformer and the Ohm Walsh driver, I think those fall more into the category of "notable" than "influential."

Extremely innovative designs, but what companies followed Ohm's lead and used the Walsh driver? None.

How many companies used Oskar Heil's driver after the AMT-1? None that I remember. It's all of a sudden available as a separate driver in some parts catalogs today, but back in 1973 when the AMT-1 was intro'd, no companies--none--jumped on the AMT bandwagon.

That's the difference between notable and influential. There's no right or wrong here. We're talking about both and the AMT-1 and Ohm F were certainly "notable."

Ditto Dynaco's "Aperiodic" design. The KLH 33. That was the total extent to which high-profile companies emulated the Aperiodic design approach: One other speaker from one other company. The A-25 was notable but not influential.

AR's sealed design was the industry standard for 20 years. Only after T-S's research became widely disseminated in the early '70's and took the guesswork out of ported design did that approach become prevalent. So sealed was "influential" for 20 years. Not bad.

The AR-3 dome tweeter? Influential for 56 years. Better than "not bad."

That's how I look at the difference between the two categorizations. "Notable" is not necessarily "influential."

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points, Steve, although I'd suggest that the Walsh driver's effect can be observed decades later in high-end companies like German Physiks and MBL; which for me establishes the design as at least important, if not purely influential in a mainstream application.

Could the absence of the Heil air-motion driver in other manufacturer's designs have been a licensing issue?

That a number of companies (Golden Ear, Martin-Logan, Legacy Audio) are suddenly releasing products with a Heil-type driver makes me wonder if this is so.

Or perhaps it was just a question of finally being able to source a less-expensive variant (hello, China!) that could be included in popularly-priced loudspeakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Undeniably true about the NS10, with its seamed white woofer.

A remarkably unremarkable loudspeaker that somehow got to be essentially standard equipment in many recording studios. Some people say it's because of--not in spite of-- its complete lack of distinction that it is so popular as a monitor speaker, the thought being that it represents the "everyday speaker," and if the recording sounds good on this very pedestrian unit, it will sound good on everything from 5" factory-standard car speakers to Thiel and Legacy super towers.

The NS10 is not really qualified in my view for this list, since I interpret this list to be the most influential home/consumer speakers.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Quad was a great and innovative speaker, but more in the "notable" than "influential" category. Virtually every single electrostatic speaker that has followed has taken the tall panel-type form factor, and therefore I think either the Maggie/KLH 9 is a better standard-bearer for electrostatic influence---if we're talking influence. Quad for notable? Sure.

The Bose AM-5 Acoustimass was listed as no. 3 in the article for influence and for good reason. I think the section on the reasons for the AM-5's influence--not to be confused with its controversial performance--is well laid out. The AM-5 inspired an entirely new category of home speaker, the sub-sat system, and made home theater far easier to accept in a real living room compared to five large wooden boxes. The speaker business has never been the same since the Bose AM-5's debut, so its influence may be about the most dramatic of all.

Remember, "influence" doesn't mean great-sounding or your favorite speaker from an engineering/design standpoint. The article deals with influence and I think it makes its case.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Quad was a great and innovative speaker, but more in the "notable" than "influential" category. Virtually every single electrostatic speaker that has followed has taken the tall panel-type form factor, and therefore I think either the Maggie/KLH 9 is a better standard-bearer for electrostatic influence---if we're talking influence. Quad for notable? Sure.

The Bose AM-5 Acoustimass was listed as no. 3 in the article for influence and for good reason. I think the section on the reasons for the AM-5's influence--not to be confused with its controversial performance--is well laid out. The AM-5 inspired an entirely new category of home speaker, the sub-sat system, and made home theater far easier to accept in a real living room compared to five large wooden boxes. The speaker business has never been the same since the Bose AM-5's debut, so its influence may be about the most dramatic of all.

Remember, "influence" doesn't mean great-sounding or your favorite speaker from an engineering/design standpoint. The article deals with influence and I think it makes its case.

Steve F.

I couldn't agree more with your post, Steve. Coincidentally, I recently spoke to a former manager of a large and popular local audio store of the 70's and 80's. He told me that the introduction of "Bose's cube/subwoofer system" was the single biggest event in speaker retailing in his day. He said everything changed at that point as sales of conventional box speakers went south rather quickly as satellite/subwoofer systems began flooding the market. That's "influence".

Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complex topic, to be sure.

That's how I look at the difference between the two categorizations. "Notable" is not necessarily "influential."

Steve F.

Stig Carlsson designs may also be be categorized for either notable or influential designs. His designs for Sonab were quite popular omnidirectional designs. Stig was probably not the first one to note interaction between room and speakers, but his work around this idea in early 50´s should not be ignored. 10 years later Bose hit the jack pot with quite similar concept.

However, later Carlson OA-50, OA-51 and OA-52 followed similar ideas Roy Allison had... but went a bit further to integrate speakers to room. I have heard OA-50 in 80´s and they were truly good speakers. Unfortunately Stig was better engineer than business man, so designs under his own name were not popular as ones under Sonab brand.

http://www.carlssonplanet.com/history.php

Best Regards

Kimmo

PS change language to English on link so it is slightly easier to understand the site... but there are far more pictures, when original language is used

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting topic that I am in no way knowledgable enough to give input on, but I will ask some questions.

i love the word influence. it can be applied in so many ways and you must take into consideration that things can be influenced in ways other than good that for whatever reason end up being successful in the marketplace. Style comes into play as well. As an architect we have our own set of influential designs that we always refer back to and that continue to impact design today.

1. There was entire generation of speakers sold in the millions that few of us on here would consider. We often categorize them as kabuki's. What speakers influenced those designs initially?

2. Did the above Bose model start the Bose market that continues today? 901? 301?

3. What was the original subwoofer? I have a Janis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kabuki? Traditional Japanese theater? What does that have to do with speakers?

Yes--the Bose 901 created quite a stir when first introduced and unlike other N.E. speaker manufacturers the company thrived.

Subs got started in the '60s and I remember their introduction. Here is some history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subwoofer

-Kent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Bose 901 was intro'd in 1968 and was the first of Bose's family of "01" speakers: the 501 was next, then the 301, 601, 201 and 401. All were variations of the "Direct reflecting" 901, but all of these were totally passive, uncomplicated speakers that simply had tweeters firing in various directions. The 901 had an EQ box that had to be inserted into the receiver's tape loop.

They were reasonably successful commercially, and Bose was just another of many speaker companies throughout the 60's-mid-80's.

Then in 1987, the AM-5 was introduced. With its hideaway "bass module" taking advantage of audible-directionality-masking factors, it was hugely successful, as noted above.

There actually was a speaker system in the 1950's called Weathers or some such that used a 3-piece configuration, taking advantage of the same acoustic principles. So there was nothing new technologically about the AM-5's basic operating concept.

The idea of subwoofers has been around for quite some time, as JKH points out above. The AM-5 was the first to truly popularize the configuration of the 3-piece system, with their 'sub' being an integral part of the full-range system. The early subs of the 60's-70's were mostly add-ons, designed to extend the host system's response below an already "pretty full range" system response. Also, the Bose bass module went high enough (about 120-150Hz) that the sats could be very small, since they were only reproducing from 150Hz on up.

That was the key--small sats, "Virtually Invisible," as Bose called it. And Bose took advantage of well-understood acoustic masking properties, so that the bass module was never objectionably or obviously localizable when the sats were also playing.

So--901, 1968 Bose reasonably successful.

AM-5, 1987. Bose grows to a different level, leaves the traditional speaker industry in the dust.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having never heard the term referring to speakers before I read the above link and now understand this to be a paradox. Kabuki is art and these speakers are not but the name probably derives from the heavy use of make up to convey character. Apparently there are traditional patterns and colors of make up that are used to signal a character type. I think "pachinko speakers" would be more appropriate but "that horse has left the barn" as they say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with some of the other posters here.

Very interesting topic which makes for enjoyable reading but usually winds up in a difference of opinion which is never resolved.

You can set up your own criteria for what is influential and then fill in the speakers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess my question about the Kabuki category is that there were a ton of speakers manufactured in the 60's and 70's that targeted a very specific market made popular by the new music of the day, rock and roll. Cabs with multiple drivers and big booming bass. The japanese manufacturers saw the market with our soldiers abroad. The idea was more is more and that is really all that mattered. I have a pair of Sansui SP200's which pretty much fall into that category. Pioneer, Sony, Sansui...they all made them. it was their contribution to speakers. So, while few if any of these will go down as a positive influence on the quality of speakers, it sure was a big run of production and brought a lot of guys initially into the world of audio gear. in fact, I bet many of these old great receivers we all now collect from that era were initially hooked up to Kabuki's. Some of you that are vets can probably chime in on this. (and thanks for your service)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great point about those elaborate Japanese speakers "influencing" the market into higher growth. My older cousin was in the Navy in the '60's and stationed overseas, and he and his buddies certainly took advantage of the opportunity to buy gear. Their experience translated into a life-long hobby, continuing when they returned Stateside and certainly "influencing" those around them.

I think all of us have a certain fascination with those 15" 4- and 5-way speakers with their multiple--and virtually random- and arbitrarily-placed drivers-- and those incredibly interesting fretwork grilles.

Yeah, the 4x no doubt had a far more linear FR and probably went deeper in the bass with less THD, but the big Japanese fretworks were a class onto themselves.

Tough to categorize, tough to quantify their impact, but equally tough to ignore.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Great point about those elaborate Japanese speakers "influencing" the market into higher growth. My older cousin was in the Navy in the '60's and stationed overseas, and he and his buddies certainly took advantage of the opportunity to buy gear. Their experience translated into a life-long hobby, continuing when they returned Stateside and certainly "influencing" those around them.

I think all of us have a certain fascination with those 15" 4- and 5-way speakers with their multiple--and virtually random- and arbitrarily-placed drivers-- and those incredibly interesting fretwork grilles.

Yeah, the 4x no doubt had a far more linear FR and probably went deeper in the bass with less THD, but the big Japanese fretworks were a class onto themselves.

Tough to categorize, tough to quantify their impact, but equally tough to ignore.

Steve F.

I doubt the Japanese speakers Steve mentions had much influence on the overall market, but he is right about the fascination with that crop of huge 4- and 5-way speakers from Japan during the 1960s and 1970s. I think there was an attempt by the Japanese to parlay their great success with electronics into loudspeakers -- an area in which they lacked loudspeaker know how and technology -- and the idea was that "bigger was better," at least in their minds with regards to the American consumer. Ironically, a good majority of these speakers were sold during the Vietnam war through USAF and USA military exchange stores.

Some examples by Akai, Sansui, Kenwood and Pioneer....

post-100160-0-78956600-1421601327_thumb.

post-100160-0-23170100-1421601346_thumb.

post-100160-0-06753200-1421601392_thumb.

post-100160-0-67241300-1421601409_thumb.

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must admit that I always liked those intricate wood grilles. :)

How do/did they sound?

Some versions were probably okay, but most were boomy, strident and harsh. Deep bass was largely non-existent, but these were designed mostly for popular rock music. Workmanship on some models seemed nice, and the cabinets were handsome for the age, sort of an emulation of the elegant old McIntosh ML-series cabinet designs.

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been a little time since I last hooked up my Sansui SP-200's I purchased them simply because of their look with the lattice grille etc. They sounded nice with acoustic music mostly as I recall. Although I would bet they would benefit from some new caps and there are threads devoted to reducing the port size to help. I think this is where the phrase "put a sock in it" was derived! :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...