Some AR2ax measurements

[genek]

How sad for you that a poor facsimile of music is only second to real music because of nostalgia for past experiences. You truely disappoint me genek. I thought you were much more discerning than that. Why then did you go so many times? Is nostalgia that important to you? Were those past experiences so memorable for something other than the sound itself? Who you were with maybe? The time period of your life? I find the experience of sitting in a seat I can't leave for an hour at a time among a couple of thousand strange people who can distract my concentration on what I'm hearing with a cough or rustling of papers less than pleasant. Does watching a sporting event on television seem equal to attending a live one except for nostalgia too? Would a TV travelogue of the Grand Canyon equal seeing it live? What a surprising response.

I might have a different view if anything in my experience told me it was remotely possible to go out and buy a sound reproduction system that really did "reproduce" the original sound in my living room. But since no such system exists, a mnemonic device that helps my imagination pull the experience back out of memory and doesn't contain any jarring distractions that ruins the effort is the best there is.

As for why I went to all those concerts, the answer to your list of reasons is "all of the above." And since I have no nostalgic history of attending live sports events and would much rather watch a game on TV in the comfort of my own home than go sit in the hot sun with a bunch of rowdy drunks, I'd have to say the peripheral experience probably was a big part of it. Haven't been to the Grand Canyon, so comparison between that live experience and the TV version will have to wait.

I am "discerning" in that I am capable of deciding for myself what experiences I enjoy more or less than others without "experts" telling me which ones are more worthy.

[genek]

Rarely is the question "What speakers do you like," (and rightly so, as your are telling us no one should care, that being devoid of import,) rather, "What speakers are good"

I never answer this question when somebody posts it. It's easy enough to tell someone which speakers were the top of a manufacturer's line, which ones are the most famous, most sought-after on the collector market, etc. But when people come along and ask the "what's good" question, the best I can come up with is to ask what they consider "good." The one thing that this discussion has clearly reinforced in my mind is that nobody who starts reading it with no idea what they like is going to come away from it with any better idea than they had when they started.

[Zilch]

The one thing that this discussion has clearly reinforced in my mind is that nobody who starts reading it with no idea what they like is going to come away from it with any better idea than they had when they started.

It's a fair presumption that those reading this thread rather like ARs, and they can certainly come away with a better understanding of what they DO like, and perhaps why, though we're not to the bottom of it yet....

[soundminded]

I might have a different view if anything in my experience told me it was remotely possible to go out and buy a sound reproduction system that really did "reproduce" the original sound in my living room. But since no such system exists, a mnemonic device that helps my imagination pull the experience back out of memory and doesn't contain any jarring distractions that ruins the effort is the best there is.

As for why I went to all those concerts, the answer to your list of reasons is "all of the above." And since I have no nostalgic history of attending live sports events and would much rather watch a game on TV in the comfort of my own home than go sit in the hot sun with a bunch of rowdy drunks, I'd have to say the peripheral experience probably was a big part of it. Haven't been to the Grand Canyon, so comparison between that live experience and the TV version will have to wait.

I am "discerning" in that I am capable of deciding for myself what experiences I enjoy more or less than others without "experts" telling me which ones are more worthy.

"I might have a different view if anything in my experience told me it was remotely possible to go out and buy a sound reproduction system that really did "reproduce" the original sound in my living room."

That was not the issue. We take it as a given that today no such thing exists. The issue is whether the sound of live music is better than that of recorded music as it is heard through whatever you think comes closest to reproducing the sound, in other words the best facsimile available of real music. If live music is better, why is it better? If it is not, why bother making any comparisons at all? Why isn't Mexico Mike right? Why all this fuss over who got it right or closest to right? Your answer so far seems to me that as far as you are concerned, one is not better or worse than the other. If such a sound system that could produce a much better facsimile was available, would you buy it? If it is not better but just different, then why would you? You'd surely have to part with more money. Maybe a lot more money. Why would it be worth it? So far your answer strikes me as no. If the correct answer is no, then why should anyone go to the trouble and expense of developing new and better technology? Of what benefit would it be to them? You have had a lot of experience attending live concerts. Yours is an informed opinion. Those who hear live unamplified music rarely if ever do not have an informed opinion.

[Zilch]

The issue is whether the sound of live music is better than that of recorded music as it is heard through whatever you think comes closest to reproducing the sound, in other words the best facsimile available of real music. If live music is better, why is it better? If it is not, why bother making any comparisons at all?

The question is provocative, and here is Toole's answer:

Knowing that the production process will lead to a reproduction liberates a new level of artistic creativity. Capturing the total essence of a "live" event is no longer the only, or even the best, objective. Sound reproduction has influenced music itself, especially jazz. And so it will continue in the unending interplay between musical creation, reproduction technology, and listener expectations and preferences.

See Chapter 1, Sound Reproduction, for the detail. It's apparent that Toole starts off on the wrong foot for some of this thread's "Concert hall is everything" traditionalists....

[Mexicomike]

Z, You are trying to "explain" why someone must prefer the sound of a speaker based on some sort of measurement that has no relation to what you are measuring. You can't get inside someone's head. You can't hear what I am hearing. It's like trying to prove that a black BMW is better than a red Ferrari. You CANNOT prove a speaker better by measuring some parameter. You can only prove it's better to me if I think it sounds better. If I don't think it sounds better than it doesn't. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that someone should buy speaker X because the specs are better even if the listener prefers the sound of speaker Y? That's the most ludicrous and "Hello, I live in some alternative Universe" thing I have ever heard.

Good luck with that marketing theory!

[genek]

Your answer so far seems to me that as far as you are concerned, one is not better or worse than the other.

Not inherently better, as in universally better regardless of one's personal preferences. For example, jumping out of an airplane at 5,000 ft with a parachute is inherently better than jumping out at that altitude without one (assuming that one has not chosen that method to commit suicide). A live acoustic music performance is a better experience than a recording of one for me because of my personal preferences, but I have no illusion that that is going to be the same for everyone.

[Zilch]

Z, You are trying to "explain" why someone must prefer the sound of a speaker based on some sort of measurement that has no relation to what you are measuring.

No, you still don't get it. The purpose is to ascertain those characteristics of loudspeakers which listeners like, and much as you and others would prefer to deny it, listener preferences are surprisingly uniform, and correlate well with objective measurements, from which "better" speaker design parameters may be derived.

Loudspeaker science does not tell anyone what they must prefer, rather, it analyzes what they DO prefer and seeks to explain why. In large measure, most people have no clue what they like, and their attempts to make that determination "by ear" from among a small sampling of alternatives selected via reliance upon others' subjective preferences has far less potential for yielding the optimum outcome for any particular listener than an objective assessment based upon fact, and there are certainly reliable facts now available which clearly discriminate the good from the inferior.

That's not to say that there aren't plenty of listeners who are perfectly content with the latter. Those statistics are also available, and their preferences simply do not stand up under informed scrutiny....

[genek]

No, you still don't get it. The purpose is to ascertain those characteristics of loudspeakers which listeners like, and much as you and others would prefer to deny it, listener preferences are surprisingly uniform, and correlate well with objective measurements, from which "better" speaker design parameters may be derived.

This is certainly true if a "better" speaker is defined by what most people like (and for anyone who intends to make a living out of manufacturing speakers, it probably needs to be).

So how do the statistics track (I'm assuming they do, since tone controls have not become obsolete on the vast majority of audio gear) listeners who have to reach out and adjust the bass and treble before they'll say they "like" the sound...?

[Zilch]

So how do the statistics track (I'm assuming they do, since tone controls have not become obsolete on the vast majority of audio gear) listeners who have to reach out and adjust the bass and treble before they'll say they "like" the sound...?

Market research measures listeners; loudspeaker science measures speakers.

In theory, the scenario you describe, once verified statistically under controlled conditions, would be indicative of a speaker having undesirable coloration, which should be further investigated to ascertain whether such simple "correction" as EQ is truly effective in mitigating the apparent design defect.

[genek]

Market research measures listeners; loudspeaker science measures speakers.

In theory, the scenario you describe, once verified statistically under controlled conditions, would be indicative of a speaker having undesirable coloration, which should be further investigated to ascertain whether such simple "correction" as EQ is truly effective in mitigating the apparent design defect.

I would think that was the case only if the majority of tone-fiddling users are turning things in the same direction.

I would expect even the "best" speaker to have some sort of bell-shaped curve of people who want them more or less bright, more or less bassy and those who don't change anything at all.

And if half go one way and half the other, I would think you've just come up with two different models.

[Shacky]

I don't get it at all. There is no great insight required, no knowledge of speaker design, no nothing EXCEPT what you like for whatever reason you like it. Saying that someone must understand all of this is silly.

Here, here! That's been my point. I enjoy learning from you guys more and more about the theory and science behind this technology of audio reproduction. But all is lost if anyone (Zilch) thinks how speakers sound to individuals is secondary or worse. Zilch keeps throwing out a statement about close correlation between measured performance and listener preference. I'll buy that but what are the specifics? Is it measuring speakers (assuming all the other parts of the system are constant) that are similar? Vastly different in quality?

I'm in medical field. You will always have sales reps spin this study or that to try and prove this drug or treatment is better than another. When you dig down into it, they are usually talking apples and oranges. Or trying to make a just noticable difference between two oranges that are as close as the same anything can be.

That's why I don't like Zilch throwing out Toole quotes or links to other threads or even forums saying this proves I'm right. It may be very valuable information but it doesn't trump the human experience.

As Carl fondly says - It's all about the music. It's all about the experience for each of us. No one has figured out how to measure that complete experience. FR, Accuracy, Psycho-acoustics, Octav over Octive energy... It's all great stuff and I very interesting and meaningful (see Zilch! I don't call your stuff meaningless).

But the most important thing about this hobby is the musical experience. And I find it more valuable to hear what folks like and don't like. Over time you get to know who has similar tastes (experiences) and can rely on those folk's likes and dislikes to be a good judge of what I may or may not like and develop a commeraderie in the process.

Poor Zilch. He'll never have that experience. He won't share

[genek]

But the most important thing about this hobby is the musical experience. And I find it more valuable to hear what folks like and don't like. Over time you get to know who has similar tastes (experiences) and can rely on those folk's likes and dislikes to be a good judge of what I may or may not like and develop a commeraderie in the process.

I think what you're seeing here is part of a long march toward sameness that's been going on for some time now. Time was when people who made things endowed them with their own personalities, and people chose between them. People used to identify with the choices they made: your choice of car made you a Ford person or a Chevy person; in hifi there were people who chose Marantz sound, Fisher sound, Pilot sound, etc., and these products really did have personalities of their own. Today numbers rule, and instead of using numbers to try to quantify different personalities, they're used to define what "correct" personality is supposed to be. So "nobody is telling you what you're supposed to like," but if you don't like what the numbers say is "correct," then it's not enough to acknowledge that you like something different, what you like must be somehow "incorrect." The one thing that everyone in this back and forth who thinks there's a "right way" to do things has in common is that there's always only one "right way," and everyone else must have "gotten it wrong."

[Zilch]

It may be very valuable information but it doesn't trump the human experience.

The human experience trumps itself, Shacky; your own preferences have changed twice in the past 30 days. Who am I to believe with respect to ARs, you or Tom Brennan?

Fact is, with respect to the purpose of defining the loudspeaker, it's irrelevant, plain and simple.

Fact #2 is what you don't like about what I do is that it ignores the only thing important to you in this.

It's affirmation you seek, and that may yet be forthcoming, and more, in fact, but if so, "Shacky likes 'em" will not be the premise....

[Zilch]

One has to admire their courage. In any case, how are we to better know your reference standards if you do not give us the info. If we can listen to those references we might begin to understand your approach to audio, such as it is.

My own courage is far more in evidence than a mere statement of my "favorites" could ever confer.

I previously linked you to means by which you might actually experience an implementation of the theories to which I subscribe; you responded, if I may paraphrase, "Surely you are joking; have you not SEEN my system?"

Clearly, since you now say you are not registered at other audio forums, you simply dismissed the suggestion as frivolous without even having a look.

No joke, Howard. Spend $168, have some DIY fun, and maybe learn something in the process.

[You could even write a review.... ]

[soundminded]

The question is provocative, and here is Toole's answer:

See Chapter 1, Sound Reproduction, for the detail. It's apparent that Toole starts off on the wrong foot for some of this thread's "Concert hall is everything" traditionalists....

"The question is provocative, and here is Toole's answer:"

"Knowing that the production process will lead to a reproduction liberates a new level of artistic creativity. Capturing the total essence of a "live" event is no longer the only, or even the best, objective. Sound reproduction has influenced music itself, especially jazz. And so it will continue in the unending interplay between musical creation, reproduction technology, and listener expectations and preferences."

The question was meant to be provocative. It has always been provocative. It goes far beyond loudspeaker design and beyond audio itself. Most of you are probably too young to remember when the following famous quote was first said or if you are as old as I am, have possibly forgotten it;

"The medium is the message".....

"is a phrase coined by Marshall McLuhan meaning that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message, creating a symbiotic relationship by which the medium influences how the message is perceived. The phrase was introduced in his most widely known book, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, published in 1964.[1] McLuhan proposes that media themselves, not the content they carry, should be the focus of study; he said that a medium affects the society in which it plays a role not only by the content delivered over the medium, but by the characteristics of the medium itself."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_medium_is_the_message

I didn't start thinking about this seriously until around 30 years ago. Has electronic sound reproduction corrupted music beyond recognition? Have recordings of music replaced the real thing thereby becoming what most regard as music today? Is what you hear coming out of a speaker in the ceiling of a supermarket music? Because jazz is often performed in smaller venues than classical music (where the large venue itself plays an overwhelming role in both the auditory and other expericence, especially the largest and most important classical works), recordings of jazz may not have corrupted jazz to the same degree.

Is the medium really the message? I watched PBS's program about the contemporary composer Phillip Glass the other night and thought about this. I do not like his music at all but hearing the sound of musical instruments recorded with microphones placed in the audience where he was sitting at places I heard concerts in, the Brooklyn Acadamy of Music and the Metropolitan Opera among others, I was reminded of concerts I enjoyed there very much. Is the concert hall merely a different medium and therefore a different message? Those kinds of places were anticipated when the composers who wrote music to be performed in them thought about how to convey their message and are taken into consideration to a great degree by musicians who perform there. That is why for example, symphony orchestras sound best when heard in their "home" concert halls where the acoustics are familiar to them. We can discuss the technical differences between live and recorded auditory experience based on gross differences in the physical events themselves but the conclusion to me is inescapable. We do not hear what the composer had in mind when we hear recordings today. We are a long way off from that. In the case of high fidelity sound, the medium badly distorts the message, often beyond recognition.

[genek]

We do not hear what the composer had in mind when we hear recordings today.

Ever been in Davies Hall in San Francisco? No recording necessary to corrupt the original composer's probable intent.

[Zilch]

If you think that your wide-angle curve somehow eclipses what the AR-3a driver set can do at wider off-axis angles you need to do a bit more analyzing. And your curves become a joke compared to what the Allison drivers can do. And those Allison drivers were designed over 30 years ago.

The curves I posted are quasi-anechoic, and clearly defy your earlier contention that off-axis measurements are all but impossible.

I have no data on the Allison tweeter, and was hoping that you could post actual measurements of them for comparison.

As far as the AR3a is concerned, the 1972 version of the Allison paper shows the anechoic data: the midrange in Fig. 2 and the tweeter in Fig. 3, with no grille molding in place, 0° - 75° off-axis.

Figs. 6 and 7 show the two in combination, with the molding in place, and despite Allison's contention that, "It is difficult to assess performance because the output level changes rapidly, not only with frequency but with small angular increments as well," it is clear in the ensuing chaos that the actual directivity no where even approximates the data you have posted, rather, is instead consistent with my own polar measurements, which, apparently, you have never seen.

[Mexicomike]

"No, you still don't get it. The purpose is to ascertain those characteristics of loudspeakers which listeners like, and much as you and others would prefer to deny it, listener preferences are surprisingly uniform, and correlate well with objective measurements, from which "better" speaker design parameters may be derived."

OK, I'll buy the premise. But then there should be some speaker that happens to have X specs that "most" people prefer over any other speaker. I am not aware of such a speaker. But AR did have over 30 percent of the "audiophile" market at their high point. Nobody else has ever done that before or since. So should we conclude that everybody in that group was an idiot and couldn't hear or is it possible to conclude that those speakers do/did "please" more listeners than any other speaker. If so, maybe we should just be using those long published AR specs as the "correct" specs to meet that "uniform" listening preference.

[soundminded]

Ever been in Davies Hall in San Francisco? No recording necessary to corrupt the original composer's probable intent.

Sorry, never did. I think I have some data for that hall in an ASA publication. I think it was renovated at one point. If I find it and it looks interesting, I'll report anything unusual about it.

Howard, I'm glad you posted the data for Zilch's favorite speaker. I looked at it also and it looked terrible to me too. In fact I don't see how it even qualifies as being called a constant directivity speaker. As I understand the concept, a constant directivity speaker will have nearly the same frequency response at every angle (over its response range of interest) up to a cutoff angle beyond which the entire response will fall sharply off a ledge. This allows arrays of them to be arranged where there is continuity without significant peaks or dips where their outputs overlap in the audience. This facilitates the most uniform coverage and highest gain before feedback in a sound re-inforcement/public address type systems at a large venue such as a sports arena. As a high fidelity music reproducer, it seems of dubious value to me.

[Zilch]

OK, I'll buy the premise. But then there should be some speaker that happens to have X specs that "most" people prefer over any other speaker. I am not aware of such a speaker. But AR did have over 30 percent of the "audiophile" market at their high point. Nobody else has ever done that before or since. So should we conclude that everybody in that group was an idiot and couldn't hear or is it possible to conclude that those speakers do/did "please" more listeners than any other speaker. If so, maybe we should just be using those long published AR specs as the "correct" specs to meet that "uniform" listening preference.

If those are the criteria, Bose is clearly the preferred speaker.

You are mixing marketing with science.

Edison was far more successful than AR in terms of market share. Should we be building those?

Just as science does not care what anyone likes, except as determined experimentally under controlled conditions, neither does it consider what people buy as determinate of anything significant with respect to how well the speaker performs.

Virtually the entire industry now subscribes to the findings of science, and the fundamental prescription is applied across the board, with greater and lesser success, of course, even to the design of boom boxes....

[Mexicomike]

ARs marketing share existed when their were several "audiophile" companies trying to create "great" speakers.

Though I don't believe I am, IF I am confusing science with marketing, you seem to be "proving with science" something that apparently doesn't correlate to real listening/hearing. The only conclusion that I can come up with is that the science - which you may understand very well - is wrong for the application. It's like the old aerodynamic proof that bumblebees can't fly. Well, on paper, according to "the science" they can't. But somehow they manage it quite well. So when science disagrees with reality, the science involved isn't worth much, regardless of how much work has gone into it.

So if your "science" says that my AR3As/LSTs don't sound good/accurate/realistic, whatever, and my ears say they do, how do I make my ears hear (apologies to Simon and Garfunkel) the "Sounds of Science" instead of the sounds of reality?

[Zilch]

As I understand the concept, a constant directivity speaker will have nearly the same frequency response at every angle (over its response range of interest) up to a cutoff angle beyond which the entire response will fall sharply off a ledge.

Nope, -6 dB defines the beamwidth. Thankfully, there is no "ledge," and off-axis reflections contribute to the sense of spaciousness in small rooms, unless you damp the early lateral ones.

http://www.xlrtechs.com/dbkeele.com/PDF/Ke...Exp%20Horns.pdf

As a high fidelity music reproducer, it seems of dubious value to me.

Perhaps you would be well served by spending $168, also....

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthrea...142#post2528142

[Shacky]

Fact #2 is what you don't like about what I do is that it ignores the only thing important to you in this.

The "thing you do" that I dislike is all this inflamatory posting of yours while hiding behind your huge ego. The truce I offered is hereby withdrawn

[Shacky]

Just as science does not care what anyone likes, except as determined experimentally under controlled conditions, neither does it consider what people buy as determinate of anything significant with respect to how well the speaker performs.

Here's some free advice. Don't go into business with that ideology.

As you become fond a accusing other:

YOU DON'T GET IT!

Science is here to serve the audiophile consumer.

You seem like an intelligent guy. How can you compare Edison to the late '50's - '60's during the "golden" era of audio? There was plenty of competition for AR. That they gained 30% market share when LP fidelity was already behond the current CD in resolution is amazing.

This is what I mean when I point out your taking bits of info and trying to blow them up into generalized rationalizations to defend your positions. Albeit never a preference position.

Can we all presume you don't care for AR speakers?