Joe Roberts wrote:

The L-9 enclosures were wood on all sides. Sealed box. No ambiguity here. Wings were common on theater speakers for mid-bass reinforcement. Plainly audible improvement on these and, for example, A-7/A-5 VOTs. It is equivalent to in-wall mounting down to a freq determined by the width of the extensions. There is no interference with MF and HF from the side baffles because those frequencies come out of the 60 degree horn on top of the cab, obviously.

That is a bold waste of speaker’s surface for a small result.

Unfortunately all, absolutely all with no exception speakers with open baffle (including with the “wings form mid-bass reinforcement”) suffer from the fact that the large vertical surfaces of their baffle flatten out the upper frequency.

The upper frequency starts to be fluffy and reminds a fur of wet animal. To “cure” it people inject more amplitude in HF, overloading the initially sub-sized horns. This is what many Morns call “vintage sound”. Ironical to demonstrate the problem is very simple – juts to toss a hairy blanket/carpet atop of large baffle. Of course then the blanket will cover the WE logo and then many audio “writers” will have no subjects to write….

Joe Roberts wrote:

Yeah, but plywood is cheap and the result is audibly noticeable. Baffle extensions were recommended for all of the Altec VOT cabinets too. Make a big improvement for cheap if you have the space. As the frequency decreases and output becomes more omnidirectional, the baffle provides a +3dB reinforcement like a close wall would. With 250hz around 5ft wavelength you can get a good mid-bass boost with a sheet of plywood.

Is not about the cost of plywood bit the placement cost if the speakers have this type wings. Sure, for monophonic films in 40s and multitude listeners in this it was not a problems but for contemporary stereophonic sound it make the speaker positioning very difficult if even possible as this type of speaks even in very large room would have very limited option to placed them in the room.

Joe Roberts wrote:

It is not "open baffle" and the upper frequencies come out of the horn which is above and apart from the baffle. 800hz crossover. Have another look at the picture. You are confusing this L-9 with some other topology, I think.

From the prospective I described above it is the "open baffle". Take any loudspeaker, even contemporary monitor and pace a 3 feet by 5 feet untreated board between them. Listed how that surface dry out sound and kill imaging. Do not call it "open baffle" if you would like to, call it “oversized baffle”.

Joe Roberts wrote:

That WE logo must be very powerful since at least 20 online show reports named this old junker "Best of Show"!  Most of the German forum threads have a few guys who thought it was the best thing there.

Ohl, here is the ultimate price! Are you one of the men who watch the Miss America shows? BTW, the fact that your German forums junkers find your WE as the Best of Show is not the indication of WE sound but the indication of level of the Show.

Joe Roberts wrote:

We were quick to remind everybody that this was a second-rate WE system but they didn't seem to care. To my ear it was a bit more "vintage sounding" than the field coil WE gear and it wasn't "perfection" but at least it had some soul, which most of the plastic speakers at the show lacked. Also, for many of the visitors this is the first time they heard a decent sized horn and that probably explains a lot of it. We are tempted to bring a theater-type system that is a step above the L-9 next year, since this was such a hit.

The fact that your Korean friends would like to expose the sound of this WE collection to public is not bad but there is concern of my in all of it as well. You and your friends are not in the business to facilitate better sound for the visitors but rather to build up publicity for audio yahoos. You might drag a few years some vintage gear to the show as some local folks did in the 2001-2002 in US but soon or later your Silbatone guys would need to build some kind of bridge between the hype you will be creating with your WE  and the current Silbatone production.  I do not see this bridge easy to build. Also, soon or later you will recognize that comments of online posters do not push sales figures. I wish your Silbatone people have enough perseverance and money to demo their WE gear with having any financial gratitude.

Joe Roberts wrote:

At Munich, we cranked the Aporias up with a 20w 845 SE and they did not catch on fire but our goal for the speaker is "big horn sound in normal sized rooms"--and 8W will do that.

Joe Roberts wrote:

… our goal for the speaker is "big horn sound in normal sized rooms"--and 8W will do that.

I think I missed it. This is erectly what I disagree with. I do not feel that a single driver dipole speaker is capable to produce “big sound”. Imposable, at least I never hear it and I leave for Joe to define what he meant by the phase the “big horn sound”. A single driver dipole never produces “big sound” and never maintain the size of Sound across dymick range. Of course “never say never” but I report what I know and what I’ve experienced. There are methods to make a single driver to “sound like big” (insertion of out of phase leaks) but it make very primitive “big sound” able to satisfy just superficial observers.

I personally feel that Silbatone involvement into Manger was a mistake. They will play with it, Joe will blow steam for them on web and the soon or later it will come to Silbatone that it was not fruitful direction. I do like some aspects of the Aporia horn but the single driver stupid notion and the use of off the wall driver made the Silbatone efforts froutless. I am saying it without hearing the Aporia, if I did I would I am very confident that I would be much more specific about the problems with Aporia Sound.

Now, a few predictions. Next year, if the Silbatone folks are no fool. then will discard the stupid Aporia and will come up with a new loudspeaker. This speaker will make an attempt to capitalize the marketing memento that Silbatone will collect by demoing their WE gear. The speaks will be contemporary Silbatone production and not a direct remake of the WE but still made in the way that would allow the Silbatone’s marketing folks (Joe and others) to make customers to feel that Silbatone Company in a way is a prolongation of the WE fame. That will be a smart move for Silbatone and that will allow the Silbatone folks to cash out a bit on their WE collecting. The most interesting thing will be to see what kind speaker the Silbatone will come up next to “compete” with WE.  Personally I do not know who behind the Silbatone. If behind Silbatone is a Korean duplicate of Joe then I would not expect too much. The reason is that I am not very impressed with Joe’s interpretation of the WE experience.  He create a publicity and excitement about the subjects but without looking into the underling reasons and the way how to practically design-wise to capitalize on the reasons. I hope the Silbatone folks will look a bit deeper and will interpret this familiarity with WE in more practical and more design-wise beneficial outcome.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Now, a few predictions. Next year, if the Silbatone folks are no fool. then will discard the stupid Aporia and will come up with a new loudspeaker. The caT

Is not about the cost of plywood bit the placement cost if the speakers have this type wings. Sure, for monophonic films in 40s and multitude listeners in this it was not a problems but for contemporary stereophonic sound it make the speaker positioning very difficult if even possible as this type of speaks even in very large room would have very limited option to placed them in the room.

I wish your Silbatone people have enough perseverance and money to demo their WE gear with having any financial gratitude.

the fact that your German forums junkers find your WE as the Best of Show is not the indication of WE sound but the indication of level of the Show.

I heard the Aporia in Munich last year IIRC, Joe, and thought the sound very weird. Dynamically and tonally uneven over the frequency range.

The reason is that I am not very impressed with Joe’s interpretation of the WE experience.

Joe Roberts wrote:

At least I have significant WE experience! Romy, you have none to speak of, yet you are super-opinionated on the subject. Someday you might learn the truth. The big WE horn systems are a different league entirely from most of the junk we play with. Speculation crumbles at the foot of experience.

I truly do not think that you understand what it is all about. Did you pay attention that for the last 30 years of your experience all that you ever did in audio was pitching like parrot that “WE horn systems are a different league entirely”. I kind of "gently" informed you that I do have trusted people who do very much familiar with best Japanese WE inhalations and who after visiting my listening room did assure me do not worry about the WE experience. I personally also do know something about audio, something that I feel you did not discover yet (try to read at my site not only the articles that mention the subpromoted Aporia and you might discover something else) that make me very comfortable with what I am getting and make me assured that WE horn systems will not do what I expected from a playback. It is not a competition and it is not my attempt to offence nether you not WE. The point is that your approbation of WE is very primitive in my view. You never define what specifics what was good and what is bad with some of the WE gear, you never capitalized  and publicized the positive and negative moments of WE sound and you never made any practical efforts to replicate or to succeed the WE sound (that is not so difficult BTW of one knows what to do). There is a lot to talk about Telefunken, Klangfilm, WE, RCA, Bell, Tanoy before 50s equipment of the period but and why the industry went all atonal,  moved from toanl sound to atonal playbacks. Still, this conversation never came from you and never will because you with your experience have very different objectives. You are in the business of pumping up hype and promote the things – you are not interested in underlying reason and methods (that in really are very different then what you think they are). Ironically, I feel that if you look into your judgment deeper then you might discover that in your blind admiration of the WE hype there is one interesting element – you apparently do not use that gear. You are a good specialist in Altec and 10-15 years back I have seen a document that I think you compiled where you went over all Altec products and with very high in my view accuracy described their problems. That was very good and it was something very practical, I wish the nowaday’s white trash that adores Altec today would learn. Still, you did not do any analyses WE despite of the fact that you have “significant WE experience”. I do not think that you do, otherwise you would be behave much more pragmatic. Any unfucked women is overlay attractive and I think that those WE installations is the “unfucked women” to you. You glorify her, you worship her, you imagine about her the best you wish to be in women… Come on, get over! Sleep with her a couple of weeks and learn that segments of your imagination are juts your imagination. Maturity is an ability to recognize really, deal with the recognition and creatively navigate the state of really to your imaginary objective. You your case with WE I do not see maturity but I see just a steam of saliva dropping. For the people who are practicing applied cooking your saliva has no meaning.

Joe Roberts wrote:

I feel I am being objective when I say that a Mirrophonic system simply blows away Altec, Vitavox, TAD, etc.

Joe, I am not a reader of your magazine and the phrase like “blows away” impress me very little. Pay attention that with all your demoed inspiration of WE you never told about specifics of WE advantage, never was able to address or even acknowledge the apparent problem of WE design. As the most humble person you even seen I would propose myself as an example. I do pass comments about audio results but all my positive or negative comments are very (always very) specific and they describe one of another aspect of sound reproduction. Your comments about WE are just hysteria and self-desire to become a slave of hysteria. I am sorry in my view it is a lack of experience and tendency to superficiality. Again, I do not offend you but I do make attempts to expose my view about your judgment. We do not know each other and we only make conclusions based upon what we heard from others. I know that you are very fast to drop concussion about my judgments at other sites (at the sites run by the people who I wish drop dead tomorrow). But you never were able to bring specific or any worthy analyses to your WE infatuation. I give it to you – your views of Altec were accurate and mature but your expression about WE are very immature. I do not know what blow away what but I think you false to make any worthy case. Not to mention that performance of playback is mostly described not by manufacturer label but by the objective of a person who responsible for the playback. Sure, you will not talk about is as you would hadley can sell this subject….

Joe Roberts wrote:

All hype aside, I can't imagine that anybody who ever heard a complete WE system with the field coil woofers and the good WE horns (e.g. 15A, 26A) and appropriate crossovers would dismiss it for more typical home horn attempts. I can only guess that they heard a few WE parts in a mismatch jumble.

Is it the shortage of your imagination of the problem of somebody judgment?  I admit that both cases are possible.  I have my opinion which case in more plausible. I can only assure you if you and I sit together in front of WE playback I would point to you many very specific aspect of Sound that I would do or do not like.  Many people who have listened with me do know it. I am not insist that I will be necessary right but my comment will be always very explicit, specific and precise.

Joe Roberts wrote:

For example, above you trash open baffles...well the BEST bass I EVER heard, EVER, came from a pair of 4181 woofers in an large open baffle with a front exponential horn that I heard last year in Korea. It was like an earthquake and it shut off in an instant. No hangover whatsoever. Incredible slam and power. I was astonished and I heard a lot of big woofer systems, including various WE multi woofer systems. This was IT.

This is exactly why I do not feel comfortable with your evaluation. Sorry, Joe, but the example you described have so many holes! What bass are we talking about:  the Lowerbass or Midbass? What were the efforts of the room in this bass? Why do you feel that the incredible slam and incredible power is something that characterize a proper bass? In my view it characterizes very bad bass if you experienced ANY slam at all. This earthquake effect that you describe is ridicules. What in live music you even heard the incredible slam, the incredible power in bass and any resemblance to earthquake? Sorry, Joe, but your comment about the “best bass you even heard” to me sound only like your shortage of dissent reference point and the WE’s system owner luck of understanding what is a good reproduced bass might be.

Joe Roberts wrote:

So when I read your words above on open bafffle woofers, although I follow the logic and appreciate the intent, I have to say that you are DEAD WRONG in practical terms. The 18" in an open baffle destroys everything I ever heard in my life.

Ok. It is your view and I am fine with it. I do know the bass you heard and this make my disagreement with you stronger. I know that you will be crying again the I never heard the WE 18" but you will fail to udders the in lower bass the quality of driver is irrelevant becose as soon the driver hit dipole mode then all driver becose to sound the SAME.

Joe Roberts wrote:

You laughed at this system last year as a hodgepodge. Go ahead and laugh. You have no clue what you are dismissing.

I do not remember myself laughing but I did say and am saying again that I would not organize the speakers this way and I have a LOT of justifications why I do not feel that the way how the Korean guy did it shall not serve proper result. Joe, if you still do not get it, you man, have a problem to get the things generally. You remind me a sales guy I meat 9 years ago in “Sound by Singer” store in NY City. The guy demonstrated me his new Grand Utopia. He was new to this and believe me or not but he forgot to remove the wooden plug from the drivers. I was sitting and weighting when he did it and he did not move. You understand that all drivers had wooden covers on them. I ask him if he find the sound incorrect. He replayed: you got to be kidding – this is the Grand Utopia!”. Joe your attitude about WE is no different that the attitude of that sales clerk in the Singer’s store.

Joe Roberts wrote:

You accuse me of dealing with mental images when in fact you are the one doing that. That's all you have on WE. Your "advisors" are wrong and probably have not in fact heard the kinds of systems I'm referring to. Where could they possibly hear them?

Ironically my "advisors" in very spesific details and without BS described many positive and negative moments of the WE systems they heard. If you know the WE world then you know that there are very few fully blown installations out there and you shell know where it was. BTW, my objectives are very much not to demand WE but to question the validity of your claims. You have very confident tone about Aporia, also claimed that I did not hear it and insisted that I will experience the effect of rebirth when I do.  I predicted the sound of this thing and my private channels who did heard it informed me that it was very accurate prediction. Sorry, I told you before that Aporia is not the level of the speaker that people propose me to listen. Now compare your attitude to WE and Aporia  - they very same rolling of eyes and use of empty adjectives. Sorry, Joe, I did not grow up reading your articles and I take the things for what they are. What I buy the thing I deal with results, not with marketing efforts to dram the things…

Joe Roberts wrote:

Maybe someday i will write about WE on the techno/practical level you are looking for, but I am retired from audio journalism and working on archaeology these days. A Silbatone brochure is not a DIY journal like Sound Practices, so don't confuse the genres.

I do not know if I would find it too useful for myself, Joe. 10 years ago I would say that I would be very much enthusiastic to read it. Nowdays, knowing what I know and understanding why some WE sound in the way they sound I would not expect that you will be able to touch the core of the Western Electric Sound. I know the answers and I know that they are not possible to sell in  your-type publications. So, you will write another cult article about pretty much empty subject and I would expect very little TRUE educational value from this endeavor for TRULY thinking reader.

Joe Roberts wrote:

As for marketing, leave it to the pros, boy. We know what we are doing and we know our audience and it isn't you (or most of the readers of this forum). We are talking to a wealthy Asian market who understands what we are saying, not some DIYers looking for good drivers for an Oris or Edgarhorn. 95% of the Silbatone market is Korea domestic and they swiftly buy everything we can produce.

Interesting. You call me a boy but you sound in the given subject as very much ignorant youngster. The very wealthy people around the world who buy very expensive gear does not build own systems and this sound is not authored sound. They have people who assemble expensive playbacks for them – not personally, no custom objective, no result-oriented custom solution. You and the people like you make then to buy what was given for you to sell, so you stuff this houses with currently fishable things. It is exactly when you and me have different vision about “the outcome”. I am talking about more advanced and more interesting sound; you are talking about number of the boxes or eBay items shipped to this or that country. And do not call me DIYer, it is well know that I have those people and this movement.

Joe Roberts wrote:

So, Romy, as our discussions always end...stick with what you have experience with and don't project your theoretical likes/dislikes on Western Electric stuff you haven't heard. You really have no idea what you are missing.

I am doing what I do the best – defending at my site the notion of sophistication in sound reproduction and trying to free it from superficiality and dubious efforts.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Nowadays, knowing what I know and understanding why some WE sound in the way they sound I would not expect that you will be able to touch the core of the WE Sound. I know the answers and I know that they are not possible to sell in publications. So, you will write another cult article about pretty much empty subject and I would expect very little TRUE educational value from this endeavor for TRULY thinking reader.

I wrote it yesterday and today I got email from a site visitor asking me to extend the subject of Western Electric Sound if I claim that “I know the answers”.  An additional encouragement I got from Italian Stefano Bertoncello's (Twogoodears) who in his blog referred to above linked thread  as “Western Electric - myth and reality“. That made me to think – I was debating a lot of myth that Joe Roberts tend to spread and I expressed a feeling that I “know the answers” but I still did not clearly lay out the answers. Well, I think I need to do it, even though I have done it many-many times with my site.

Joe Roberts is not incorrect. The Western Electric does have very special and very valuable sound; I would say very unique sound. It is of cause is very far from the “serious sound” as I understand “serious sound” due to the very many design decisions that WE did in 30s were done at sub-acceptable level. There were no such a high demands to sound at that time as we have today. Still, the Western Electric systems have something very special that for people who accent that “special” makes all difference. Yes, some Western Electric elements have tone, the tone and harmonics that none of the today elements have. But can Western Electric be responsible for this tone? Here is the major difference between me and Joe is kicking in. The people like Joe Roberts catalog the difference and build a superstructure of admiration. They drop on the knee and pray to it, they completely subordinate themselves to the subject of self-chosen worshiping. There is nothing wrong to it but I find it is not stimulating enough for myself. I am in contrary would like to find the reason for that “special” and be able to administer that level of “special” at my own will.

Here is what the ridicules contradiction came: Joe Roberts is not incorrect – there is absolutely nothing special in Western Electric design and implementations. The all differences why some Western Electric products have very unique sonic characteristics are in very different resources that dosing/production companies used then and now.  60-70 years back there were different materials and manufacturing posses was very much not concentrated how to save money. The cost-effective technologies were not so developed people dumped enormous amount of super expensive recourses into manufacturing.    That all that describe the secret of Western Electric sound and why is what we today can’t replicate it.

Mr. Roberts prostitute on his love to Western Electric but he does not realize that there is absolutely no uniqueness in Western Electric uniqueness. Joe is American, he learned about Western Electric and him and the people like his sold the Western Electric story to reach Japanese.  Joe does not feel that RCA in 30s and Bell did identically uniquely sounding audio products.  They were the same crap not up to today reference point but they were made from non-frugal materials and they do have very different sound from the plastic driver we have today. Europeans have Telefunken and Klangfilm (with is mostly Siemens) and a view others .They were in my view even more advanced then Western Electric and they also had not as much sophistication in design but rather very expensive made products with very good materials – all of them have very unique sound.  Find some Tesla driver from 40s and you will see how good tonally the drivers of the crappy company might be if they make not by technologies from economic factuality of contemporary university.  I do not even mention some Russian products from long past. In the condition of planed economy and with no competition some Russian making from 50s was so stunning expensive that the today technologies would have hard attack. A few years back I was told by a very old guy how military tubes were made in 1952 – it was insane from today stand point.

Many, very many thing was very different in past. Phonographic film in past had 100s time mode silver then it has today. If someone knows A2 film then they know that the file was so much silver that it was scare. The film might run from 16ASA to 3500 ASA and while you shot you could make 8 stops error (!!!) with no negative consequences. I can give dozen and dozen examples, including from audio and it will be very clear that t the “low” and non-economical technology from the past were a huge benefit.

Ironically every single attempt toady to recreate the sound of some of the vintage elements is never work. We do not have today the same metals, the same paper, the same chemicals, the same air and the same water;  the time passed and as Russians say – you can never step in the same river twice…

Some of the vintage products do have some materiality-base uniqueness and it shall cost a lot of money. That is fine. Still, in my view it shall not be a reason for blind and self-demeaning worshiping of everything vintage as so many morons in audio suffer. Take me as an example. I do use some vintage elements in my playback but I use them purposefully.  I recognize their strengths and weaknesses and I capitalize on the strengths only. I think this is the only sane approach I see; when some vintage uniqueness of my choosing serves the purposes that I dedicate it to serve.

Remember:  the advantage of the some (not all of them) older products in not because they were better engineered but because at that time were better natural materials and because at that time the bad engineering methods were not invented yet. Read the last sentence again a few time to understand and to memorize it.

Sure, Joe would continue his WE paranoia, very much the same as some of my European connections have their fixation on a dozen other companies.  I have a guy who over a year swears to me that there is no better sounding tube then PX4 by Marconi. His is not only very experienced guy but there is hand full person alive who has the experience of his level. I bought this tube. It sound very nice and it looks like shit. The guy gave me an explanation why this tube must be better than anything else. Interesting but all of his justifications and reasons were about the materials used. Yes, it is about materials and low technologies. The Leitz of Wetzlar would not become the Leica if not that unique Australian sand hat Germans bough in 30s and those pregnant women who polished with fingertips the best Leitz lenses. It is good material and absence of cost-effective production - it was it. There is no need to lick WE label out of rotten wood boards. You need to recognize what was good what was bad, to make concussion and move forward.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I do use some vintage elements in my playback but I use them purposefully.  I recognize their strengths and weaknesses and I capitalize on the strengths only. I think this is the only sane approach I see; when some vintage uniqueness of my choosing serves the purposes that I dedicate it to serve.

http://bgaudio.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19032

Now back to the topic. Most of the WE drivers are full of compromises but unfortunately no one speak about it. People just create hype about them, but they do not recognize what is wrong with their sound, and because of that the prices in ebay grow up every year in proportion with their popularity...

haralanov wrote:

Now back to the topic. Most of the WE drivers are full of compromises but unfortunately no one speak about it. People just create hype about them, but they do not recognize what is wrong with their sound, and because of that the prices in ebay grow up every year in proportion with their popularity...

It is not they are full of compromises. They are fine what they were made for. Do not forget that in 30s the requirement in sound was very limited according to our today standards.  All those speakers, amplifiers and so on were made to serve very different level of demands and therefore they only in context of out today much higher level of requirement might be considered as compromised. For sure then have some own quality that in my view are practically not achievable by current production. However is very difficult to use this single positive quality.  The use of solutions from 30-40 as is very-very questionable in my view. My problem with people who do it not with their sound but with the fact that they do not understand the sound they are getting. A 5-6 years back I spoke with a guy from North Jersey who has a full WE system in his home. I sometimes drive from Boston to Philadelphia and I thought o stop by at his place to listen. However, talking with the guy and listening what and how he feel about audio I decided that my trip to his place will be a waste of my time and I did not go. I am interested in personal statements in audio not with piling up a mountain of cookie-cutter electronic, it does not matter to me would it be Krell, Western Electric, Lamm, Madrigal or Avalons. It is very simple to get a lot of money and buy some flashy gear. It is much more complicated to understand what is necessary to do with the gear in order to crate own sound. In my experience there are very limited amount of people out there who can work with vintage equipment creatively and with good success. Those few who do they do not drool about vintage paranoia but they more trust to themselves.

Anyhow, you right, no people who create hype understand or wiling to go into specifics. Why? Because then this incompetence and lightweightness become too visible.

be wrote:

Are you thinking of the WE drivers or the setup? If it is the drivers: What exactly are these “sub-acceptable level design decisions”?

Romy the Cat wrote:

our logic is correct but you refuse to see the whole picture - this is the biggest mistake the admirers of the open baffles do. Let trace the entire process. You grow the size of the baffle in order to keep the speakers to enter the “dipole mode” at the level where acoustic pressure under Fs is dropped. If you are at 1000Hz or 500Hz or even 200Hz then it is doable and it work very nice. However, if you are at 50 Hz or at 30Hz then the size of the wake grows significantly faster and ne you need truly huge baffle. Let forget the LF acoustic shortage due to the reflection while the huge baffle are being used. The very large baffles would require very large rooms, this is understandable. The very large rooms would require more and more acoustic pressure injected into the room in order to reproduce the relatively low frequency. Pressure might be built up only by surface and exertion. The driver’s surface is fixed, so to get more pressure at LF in the very large room we need to exert the drivers further. Unfortunately the drivers in the past were not made to work in heavy exertion mode. The best older woofers are hard-suspended drivers and they did VERY good tonally in limited dymick ranges. Drive then a bit harder and this coils will run out of their very short saturated magnetic gap and their wonderful tone get converted into very severs distortion. Take for instance the best Klangfilm woofers and play them louder then mezzo forte – they dive into very sever distortions. It is not to mention that ALL open baffle driver at the bottom sound absolutely the same…