Re: 604's....Why is it so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
whitebroncoii
Everyone seems to forget how much Altec Lansing struggled after the LTV buy out. As a member of Jimmy Ling's paper empire, the '60s had to be one cash flow crisis after another. When Jimmy spun Altec off in 1970 with $22M owed, it could not have been a cakewalk for management. By the time I was hired in 1983 (the same year they claimed Chapter 11), they were closing down the home hifi and car stereo lines. The primary market for Altec from 1983 until the end was installed sound. Very lucrative and, at that time, few of the products could be moved sideways and used in the smaller markets (recording, concert, home stereo, broadcast).
Altec Lansing had to reduce its intended markets and use its limited resources to survive. The markets that the 604 was developed for were no longer addressed because they simply did not generate enough payback without massive investments. There were great products developed by Altec Lansing during this period. These products were for markets not addressed by this forum.
I'm a little insulted with BobR's ramble. He appears to be a huge JBL fan that has joined this forum to slam Altec. Listing the so-called deficiencies of the 604? And what did JBL offer in the '50s and '60s? After Harmon bought UREI, JBL tried valiantly to make a replacement for the 604 to fill the 813. The 813 loaded with their jewel faded away rapidly. JBL survives today on its consumer products that are imported from China.
I am sorry that you were insulted as that wasn't my intention. I am a strong JBL fan to be certain. But I'm also a strong Altec fan as well.
I believe that the LTV fiasco is well-understood by those on this forum and is one of the reasons why Altec was unable to bring much of its research and development to market. My knowledge of pre-1980s Altec is via the accounts of engineers who unanimously had a dim view of the management. Perhaps it is justified, perhaps not. Also, while I do realise that installed sound constituted a large proportion of Altec's business, I am admittedly not so familiar with this industry as I am with professional audio -- I do apologise for being regrettably myopic.
The deficiencies of the 604 ARE real however and I make no apologies for pointing them out. UREI addressed this and that's why their 604-based monitor range became popular despite the 604 concurrently losing popularity.
JBL-coaxial jewel nonwithstanding, 15" coaxial drivers (with separate horns) have ragged DI which is why even the popular UREI fell out of favour. JBL's flagship 4430/4435 monitor range addressed the power response requirement based upon their (an many others') acoustic research and their Not-Invented-Here complex as well and were quite popular by the mid-1980s. They simply worked much better in most sensible control rooms.
As an aside, the recent Equator Audio coaxial monitor range leverages heavy DSP and psychoacoustic manipulation to address directivity (Equator Audio retains Walter Dick, a former Altec engineer).
Equator Audio Studio Monitors
JBL survives today on a lot more than Chinese imports (which are vastly improving in quality as of late reminiscent of post-WWII Japan); Harman International retains some of the best talent and conducts serious acoustic and psychoacoustic research. It also has a sound financial base and management to leverage that research.
This is probably where Altec would be today had it not been for LTV, Gulton, EV/Telex/Mark IV amongst other mitigating circumstances and corporate culture issues. Most likely offering very similar product ranges as well. In any event, I'd much rather have Altec occupy this position in professional audio based upon my personal bias.
BobR
