Jump to content

How would you achieve that AR sound modern components?


onplane

Recommended Posts

Edited my post about the NHT Classic 3 for those who cannot remember from my previous

posts that the plan is to add EQ as needed to get whatever is chosen as the target AR voicing.

I also mentioned adding an AR woofer that seems to have been ignored, some people need to

read with more attention.

Actually, I should just put ar_pro on ignore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Onplane

After this post I will shut up and just watch.  There are several paths to achieving your goal.  The summation of all that has been posted in this thread is whatever pleases your ears is the solution and whatever you choose will stand a better chance of pleasing your ears if you use an equalizer IMO.

Adams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

There are a family of AR speakers. I thought it would be useful to show the differences among the several AR speakers so one can choose which AR speaker you wish to match.5ae85a081e3a1_AllAR.thumb.JPG.bddebf0e77c645989f0bbb8db901c2cc.JPG

The comparative frequency response curves were published originally  in 1970 from the September Issue of Electronics World by Hirsch-Houck Labs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

This is still the on topic. 

I have been looking at the specs for small speakers.  Almost all are bass reflex and many tout specs that challenge credulity. 

For instance, I came across this speaker from Human;

image.jpeg.7e7eec689159980a3be7e3b441fd8507.jpegimage.jpeg.bedc029ffdad2c4ead9a46ea27150b42.jpeg

The stated freq parameters are -/+ 2db from 38hz to 26khz which are better than the original Advent and is believable down to 100hz or so.

I have never heard any 2way 6 inch speaker that could challenge an OLA below 100hz.  This is AR 3 series territory.  What should I believe.  On paper, this Human model, can outperform an AR3a.   

Questions:

Is this possible with today’s state of the speaker art?

If possible then is it plausible for $425?

Adams

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

This thread is about recreating the "AR sound".

This is a post is about the evolution of “AR sound”.

The text below was taken from a very informative thread in Mods and Tweaks regarding AR4x crossover mods. The thread originated in the AR forum but was moved to mods and tweaks years ago, for obvious reasons, but this piece of that thread belongs in the AR forum. The poster was “Speaker Dave”, a former Snell designer. 

“We can only speculate while looking at the system several decades later. We do know that the AR design preference at the time was to optimize the individual driver and crossover bandpasses in a reverberent chamber. This would emphasize the power response of each driver while downplaying the axial response. When looking at the woofer and its crossover, and the tweeter and its crossover, in a reverb room, the primary difference would be the woofer's response. As any woofer rolls off considerably off axis, it would effectively have a lower crossover point in a reverb room. This would downplay the overlap issues and might suggest a larger capacitor value as optimum.

AR also preferred a balance that followed measurements of concert halls (room R converted to a response curve). This, along with optimizing woofers to be flattest in 2 pi (half space), is the reason why every early generation product seems to have a family curve that crowns at mid frequencies when the system is measured in a free field. The 2pi-4pi difference gives an uphill trend in the woofer range and the down-tilt in the treble matches the concert hall trend.

None of these are matters of "right philosophy, wrong philosophy", but are typical af a general industry-wide evolution in design approach over the years. We certainly saw the same thing within AR: the AR 9 is designed to a flatter free field response and has key features such as the acoustic blanket, that only impact the direct response.

Its also worthwile pointing out the contribution of test equipment over the years. Much of the Linkwitz/Reilly approach to crossover design, which is the basis of my discussion of "adding an order to get the phase more in line" would have been, as a practical matter, impossible in the 60's. The essential component of measuring phase response couldn't be done on a frequency sweep basis. The first tool for doing that that I recall was the B&K phase meter of about 1980. It still didn't allow removal of excess phase, the 1 or 2 meters of air path delay, so it wasn't a great help. (My rusty recollection.) It really took MLSSA, TEF and FFT methods to give easily made phase curves.

I don't think capacitor cost was a factor. But I'm sure that a more complex crossover, certainly a third order network, would have been rejected for reasons of cost. This is again typical of the times. JBL made a lot of money selling L100's with 2 caps and 2 L-Pads, nothing else. An inductor on the woofer was already an extravegence on AR's part, in a budget system.”

Regards,

David

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I envision the ultimate answer as an array of sources whose combined frequency response and reverberant field are digitally modeled and controlled. Component frequency response would become irrelevant because of equalization, and component dispersion would become irrelevant because the field is generated by modulating the output of each source. Think audio holodeck.

The question would be, would you still want to recreate vintage AR sound, or knowing the original of the vintage design was to simulate the sound of a live concert, would your target be the original live performers in, say, the Boston Symphony Hall?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, genek said:

I envision the ultimate answer as an array of sources whose combined frequency response and reverberant field are digitally modeled and controlled. Component frequency response would become irrelevant because of equalization, and component dispersion would become irrelevant because the field is generated by modulating the output of each source. Think audio holodeck.

The question would be, would you still want to recreate vintage AR sound, or knowing the original of the vintage design was to simulate the sound of a live concert, would your target be the original live performers in, say, the Boston Symphony Hall?

If you are talking about a model NCC-1701 audio holodeck well, of course.  Back to this thread , what would you do while you are awaiting delivery?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I just finished doing another survey of the sub-woofer landscape, both powered and passive, for home music applications. Not much has changed in the last couple of years

Criteria for selection are

1 Essentially flat between 32hz and 220hz

2. low pass variable from 30 to 200hz

3. Selectable between 12 and 24db/octave slope

4. XLR, high level, and RCA connections preferable.

 

Here are some random listed conclusions.

Minimum price for above criteria appears to be $1500/pair for factory modified Hsu Mk2 subs. The modification would extend the low pass from the standard 90hz to up 200hz. The variable crossover range would be 30-200hz.  Mod is $50 per unit with 24db/octave slope only.

SVS 1000 and 2000 hit the mark except they are strictly 12db/octave.

New passive subs for home audio do not appear to be available except in kit form and even then, there are very few choices.

Almost all powered subs are optimized for HT use.  On paper most do not appear to offer sufficiently flexible adjustments to blend with the wide range of satellites that could be used for critical music listening.

Exceptions are:

SVS PCB and Ultras beginning at $2000/ pair

Revel Performa beginning at $4400/ pair

Conclusion: IMO the best value currently is an AR12” AS with a DSP amp and a 31 band equalizer or an Allison ESW if you can find one.

Feel free to change my mind by providing new facts that I may have overlooked.

Adams

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, genek said:

How would using AR or Allison hardware meet the criteria of using "modern components?"

Point taken. I am making a statement about the cost to cover the bottom bottom 2 1/2 octaves comparable to an AR9.  Just pointing out good subs that are highly adaptable for home music applications are uncommon and expensive. They are much more expensive than using a an AR 12inch or an OLA as a passive sub-woofer for satellites.  Of the three elements required for the passive solution only the AR 12" would not meet the criterion but taken together the bass system would be 66% new.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Aadams said:

Point taken. I am making a statement about the cost to cover the bottom bottom 2 1/2 octaves comparable to an AR9.  Just pointing out good subs that are highly adaptable for home music applications are uncommon and expensive. They are much more expensive than using a an AR 12inch or an OLA as a passive sub-woofer for satellites.  Of the three elements required for the passive solution only the AR 12" would not meet the criterion but taken together the bass system would be 66% new.

I suspect that determining how much it would cost to achieve that AR sound using modern components is one of the major points of interest in this topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/21/2018 at 8:07 AM, RickB said:

I had the pleasure of hearing Pete B's modded AR 11 speakers at the "Frankenfest" in Sutton Ma. I was very impressed, especially with the sound-stage they presented in a large room. My first time at a "Frankenfest"and hopefully not my last.

Thanks Rick nice to see and meet you at Frankenfest!

Hope we have a better turnout in March.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...
On 4/14/2018 at 6:21 PM, genek said:

Everything I've seen in this discussion leads me to conclude that it would cost a lot more to buy new speakers and try to get classic AR sound out of them than it would to buy classic ARs and restore them, even if you had to pay someone to do the work for you. 

Update:

The above is still true but Harman International now, in 2023, explicitly states that speaker brands Revel, JBL Synthesis and JBL Professional  are intentionally designed and built to achieve in room performance that conforms to the "Harman Curve" for loudspeakers, which looks and reads an awful lot like the AR philosophy for loudspeakers from Roy Allison days.

Entry pricing for 2 way six inch is about $600 each.  JBL L100 Synthesis, @ $5k/pair,  which looks like an L100 Century is in this group. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, genek said:

wonder how the "Harman Curve" compares to the old Harman standard, which, IIRC, was whatever the majority of listeners in Floyd Toole's 1980s blind listening tests said they liked best.

Turns out there is a graph that answers your question from Lansing Heritage

image.png.b82d101128541ac75821cb7ae7a43ebd.png

The bold dashed line is close to the published target of Revel and some JBL

Compare to these below

image.thumb.png.21ff0e3f93f751c720a093b140f0025e.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, genek said:

Do we know which of these curves Harman was producing speakers to conform to in the 80s and 90s?

No. The information in the chart was first presented in 2015, as far as I know.

To my eye, it appears that the AR curves are closest to Toole's "Trained Listeners Only."

Yes. You are correct

All of the listener curves are considered valid and acceptable.

The chart is saying the only way to satisfy the preferences of most home listeners is to design high quality loudspeakers that can produce steady state "sound power" throughout a home listening space as represented by the heavy dashed line.  I added the red lines to highlight range of effect due to reflectivity in normal listening spaces.

image.png.e5e6173512775dbb312dff84ce8883a3.png

The heavy dashed line is not an on axis line. It is the Harman version of this

image.png.80ba6158f8a07a92e5c2ab34faa70127.png

The paper is freely available at the link above.  In addition to target curves for loudspeaker design, there are Harman target curves for Cinema and Studio spaces. All of which are aimed at satisfying the tastes of listeners in those spaces;

Akin to Roy Allison creating speakers to meet the expectations of a listener whose ear is attuned to the acoustics of Boston Symphony Hall.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder where all those screechy, boomy speakers I've heard fall in this. I haven't auditioned any new speakers in at least 10 years now, so no idea what Harman's current lines are like, but I'd be very surprised if new JBLs sound remotely reminiscent of ARs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Using modern drivers, I think you’d have to use high and low pass filters to shape modern driver outputs to roll off their normally flat response. Or, use inexpensive drivers for mid and tweeters. I’m talking 1970 and older AR sound. It would be pretty difficult to make an old wineskin using new glass bottles, for 1976+ AR sound. 
 

Substituting a new driver for only 1 in an older AR speaker is certainly doable. Maybe 2. But not all 3 in a 3-way design. Matching Sound power response is only 1 aspect. Each driver has its own voice, and matching that with a modern driver would be difficult. Like Bob Carver matching voices of amplifiers, only more difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...