Historical vs. Upgrade posts

[Steve F]

The posts on this site seem to fall into one of two broad categories: either historical/restoration or upgrade/modification. As Bret just said on the 10Pi thread:

"Certainly, if the auto-transformer is going to saturate, the 10pi's measured performance could be improved by turning it into an 11, then adding external equalization. We could improve it again by turning that into an AR-91. We could improve it again by turning it into a 303. We could improve it again by turning it into a . . . whatever they are now, some MTM configuration. We could tri-amp it, completely ridding ourselves of the problems a passive crossover causes. Then if we changed to better drivers it'd spec-out like modern speaker! I have no question that such a speaker would out-perform the classic 10pi, and in an A/B test would win hands-down in every category except, "Does it sound like a 10pi?"

This captures the essence of the "raison d’être" of the Classic Speakers Forum as well as anything I’ve read from anyone. For many of us, this forum is an extremely valuable vehicle to exchange information, recollections, historical data and opinions regarding the original classic speakers, mainly from the New England area, from the 1950’s through the 1980’s.

"When was the model XYZ introduced?"

"What was the difference between the ABC and the DEF?"

"Did AR make the tweeter in the QRS or did they farm it out?"

"Who was the lead engineer for the so-and-so project?"

"If anyone has heard both models, was the ABC really better than the XYZ?"

"Where can I get a replacement midrange for the DEF and what was the original part number?"

And so on. These are the pure discussions of the classic speakers. Once we start to get into hypothetical discussions of modern incarnations of old speakers or component upgrades of their innards or divers, then, as Bret so correctly points out above, the discussion can stray away the original subject in an open-ended manner, without any particular relationship to the original Classic Speaker.

Let’s be very clear about this: Hypothetical discussions about upgrades and speaker design theory are enjoyable and worthwhile endeavors. It’s fascinating to ponder whether this or that tweeter would be better in this or that application. It’s extremely interesting to anyone who loves speakers and audio—which I think describes all of us—to exchange ideas on measurement techniques or enclosure bracing methods or whether first-order crossovers really sound better or whether time-aligned or narrow baffle designs are demonstrably superior to other types in a tightly-controlled double-blind A-B test.

But none of that—interesting and legitimate as it unquestionably is—has anything to do with the historical/restoration discussion of the classic 1950’s-1980’s speakers, which many of us feel is the reason this site was created. Perhaps there needs to be a section of this site devoted to "Upgrades, New Designs, and Theory." That way, when someone has an idea for a modern version of the AR-11, or wants to relate how that new SEAS tweeter performs in the original Large Advent with just these simple x-o mods, the discussion will stay focused on that new project instead of getting mixed up in an historical discussion of the Classic Speakers.

Steve F.

[charger3834]

Steve,

I very much agree with your assessment. I think what has happened here is that Mark has created such a profound website, that the old forum divisions of AR, Advent etc, may need to be expanded upon to accommodate the divergent interests of the vastly increased number of forum members. My engineering background is limited and my interest is specific to historical and restoration topics. Many other members no doubt have less interest in these topics, and perhaps more interest in topics related to modification etc.

[kkantor]

Bret's post is 100% right on. And I generally agree with your assessment. But...

Actually building something also adds insight about the original design, if only learning how wise the original design choices were. This is not a process most classic speaker lovers can, or want to, undertake. Thus, it might be fun to grow something like a slime mold in a petri dish, for others to watch and draw what they want from.

No way would I see it as an improvement over the original. Having spent a great deal of time and effort just trying to modernize a 3a, I can tell you it is no casual or easy task. And the result is guaranteed to have at least some relative shortcomings. There is no free lunch in this biz.

Still, even debating why a dome might work better than a cone, or vica versa, can be a good learning experience. Perhaps Bret and you might suggest, this is better left to the DIY speaker boards. I can see that logic. But, then you would lose some of the tribal knowledge that exists here.

Perhaps we can start a DIY forum here, and invite various former "classic" designers and suppliers to post. ?

-k

www.tymphany.com

www.aural.org

[Guest Bret]

>Perhaps Bret and you might suggest, this is better left to the DIY speaker boards.<

I would like to dissociate myself with any inventive reading of my comments which might be construed as an invitation for anyone to leave, to stop thinking aloud, or to confine themselves within a narrow interpretation of “right-thinking.”

My entire purpose in the message I wrote was to explain my pig-headed, illogical refusal to accept good advice, thus living with a known problem for which there is a known remedy. It was neither a chastisement, nor an attempt to indoctrinate; merely an explanation I felt I owed soundminded and Pete.

Any possible, less-kind interpretation is hereby declared null and void.

As to the original point Steve was making that you commented-on, I agree with his assessment and think your solution is possibly a good one - conceptually. It would lessen serendipitous episodes of learning, but that may be a fair price to pay to keep the boards usable and on-topic. In fact, I hope we can enhance a user’s ability to find specific, true information.

As for minimizing thread-drift and eliminating spurious tangential digressions: Between installments (fits?) of experiencing Megadeath in full hi-fi via 303a's, Our Fearless Leader has ordered it so. Who am I to argue? Or Meddle? (which, btw, sounds extraordinary on a well-mastered CD) I'll bet it would be extra special on MGC-1s.

Bret

[soundminded]

I don't think I would be happy if this board is reduced to nothing more than a museum. You can only look at the same exhibits so many times before it gets tiresome. I won't be happy with it as a shrine either. Acoustic Research was a fine company that used science and engineering to create high accuracy sound reproduction equipment but it did not have a monopoly on innovation, interesting ideas, or valuable products. I think what they did is far more intersting and significant when it is put in context of both what other people were doing at the same time and what has transpired in the decades since they stopped. Edgar Vilcher sent a snowball rolling down a mountain and it has grown larger ever since. The concepts have expanded and been refined. It seems shortsighted to me to put a brick wall in front of it and exclude exploration by those who are interested in the concepts that originated there and where they might lead in light of enormous advances in the last 20 years. If that meas they are to be segregated into a different compartment then that's okay with me just so it isn't taboo for people to come here to discuss their own ideas. But, where do you draw the line? Where does replacing an AR3 tweeter with a Vifa tweeter or replacing the original electrolytic capacitors with Solen caps end and replacing all of the parts and modifying the overall design begin? This board seems to me to have been very satisfying up to now. Why change it because a few people didn't like a couple of threads. I say if you don't like the subject of a thread, go on to another one or start your own. I don't see the purpose of this site having been compromised in any way by any of the recent threads. The restriction to "focus" discussions smacks of censorship to me. Let the participants take discussions where they want to. PeteB's topic not only has generated over 50 contributions already but has been cited on at least one other audio board as a interesting discussion to look at. Threads like that might even bring in more members.

[rrcrain]

Having read quite a few other audio discussion boards on various topics, history suggests that some people seem to view their ideas regarding audio as a personal religion and can not openly discuss ideas without the tread turning into a name calling event. This was aleviated by a couple of calm, level headed people who frequent this board, but the thread appeared to have been heading that direction.

It's my guess that this is what was feared would happen here and an effort was made to prevent the it from happening here. The Classic Speaker Pages are the only discussion forum that I've located to date that is informative, friendly, and populated by very intelligent and informed members, and I hope it stays that way. I'm sure there are others, I just haven't found them yet.

[administrator]

>As for minimizing thread-drift and eliminating spurious

>tangential digressions: Between installments (fits?) of

>experiencing Megadeath in full hi-fi via 303a's, Our Fearless

>Leader has ordered it so. Who am I to argue? Or Meddle?

>(which, btw, sounds extraordinary on a well-mastered CD) I'll

>bet it would be extra special on MGC-1s.

Hi Bret,

Let me clarify here - I said posts that started blatantly off-topic or devolve into flamefests. So if someone kicks off a thread regarding KLH speakers in the AR forum, I will move it, as I have done in the past. (Not consistently because of time constraints, but I'm trying to get better at attending to the website.) On the other hand, the flamefests I am more likely to delete than move.

So I don't have a problem with thread-drift. The problem is with threads that start off without having anything to do with the channel topic. This does *not* happen often, I just felt the need to state the obvious because I also wanted to address the civility issue.

I think the issue of splitting the forums (in particular the AR forum) out into "History and Repair" vs. "Upgrading and Theory" is a serious one. I am not entirely sure how that will affect the community at large, so I'll see where this thread goes.

Mark

[Guest Bret]

Hi Mark,

I have some additional thoughts about the duality of AR fanatics and your having created *the* repository for AR information and discussion. I will all but beg you and others to argue with me so that the “tribal knowledge” (as Ken so aptly put it) can create a gestalt. I apologize if I seem a bit long-winded, but the both the angel and devil are in the details.

From 1994 until about 2000 I was a regular contributor to a Compuserve forum and served as Sysop from about 1999 to present (although my duties have diminished to naught, now). The internet was developing, but not developed for most of that time and commercial, informational websites were not up-and-running.

Compuserve’s membership was as intelligent and well-behaved as this forum’s. AOL had a counterpart to our Compuserve forum early-on. AOL’s forum tended to be rowdier, full of inaccuracies or just plain untruths, and was plagued by off-topic, inappropriate, and often childish discussions. The subject matter was travel to Disney World in FL. Many, many, many people used the Compuserve forum as the central repository of all things Disney. (Remember, this pre-dates Disney’s web-presence and all the Disney-related websites; Compuserve had a large membership.)

Unlike this forum’s subject matter, facts changed (park hours, special promotions, parade schedules, even which resorts were available and their price) resulting in a need to constantly update real, true, solid facts. Like this forum, people’s personal experiences of these facts sometimes differed.

The forum was arranged in two parts: 1) a library, to which anyone could contribute anything from a text file “trip report” to a spreadsheet of resort prices, photos of a recent trip, even theme park calendars. 2) an open-forum threaded discussion.

Current happenings were usually posted (by convention, not by rule) in forum threads since these things would change quickly. More enduring informational submissions to the library were submitted to a librarian who would check them for inappropriateness or copyright or other violations, and then would be posted usually three days to a week later. It was against forum policy to even discuss a library submission in the open forum until such time as it was approved and posted (e.g. you could not reference the menu at a restaurant you just posted in the library until it was there - this kept people from searching the library for information that was rejected, so never showed-up).

Library submissions carried keywords (chosen by the contributor), a title, and a date. Their GREAT attribute was that once submitted, they were always easily available.

It was tried, and mostly abandoned, that pivotal threads would be archived in the library. This practice was dropped because locating information in the threads was cumbersome and was not consistent with the goal of creating a searchable database.

Two or three things happened that destroyed that forum. Compuserve’s membership abandoned-ship due to pricing. AOL dropped its community-based informational forum and began hosting what amounted to commercial sites where the entity (in this case Disney) could control the content and all the copyright-infringement issues went-away for them. Soon after that Disney launched its own website and the AOL Disney travel area went away, mostly. Compuserve’s forum could not compete with internet websites because the forum hosts (not actually Compuserve, but subcontractors) had to abide by rules and restrictions, whereas websites tended to violate copyright with impunity. (we were completely paranoid about using even an image of a "ride" at Disney World on a commercial website)

The information and community here at The Classic Speaker Pages reminds me a lot of the earlier days with Compuserve forums and my thought is that what worked there, would work here. Rather than endlessly answering the exact same questions time and time again, as a central repository for all AR knowledge, a library of factual submissions, particularly submitted by those with some expertise and authority, would turn *that portion* of the site into *the* museum.

What I don’t know is if you, Mark, have any interest in doing that or if the membership here would support it. It would take some work on all our parts. Tom Tyson might or might not be willing to share everything he has, and Ken Kantor might or might not be willing to share everything he has, and maybe none of us would be willing to share everything we have (photos of drivers, parts-lists, brochures).

The subject matter lends itself to this solution. “How to remove the grill from an AR-1" could be a single, factual, text or PDF file (something universally readable) document submitted by someone experienced in doing it. “The pros and cons of replacing capacitors in classic speakers” could be another. An experienced, fact-seeking contributor here has already provided hard numbers in forum threads on multiple occasions concerning the reasons to do it, and we have expert testimony against doing it. Both could be in one "File" or there could be a "reasons to change capacitors" file and a "reasons not to change capacitors" file. Currently the information isn't all in one place. “The great 12" measurement project of 2002" could be a multi-paged PDF complete with photos, charts, graphs, conclusions, caveats, etc. Someone recently suggested to me a file of “errata” which could be added-to and updated easily.

The way it would work is “errata” would be identified and added to the library as a text file. As additional errata was found, the person who discovered it could download the TXT file, edit, add their findings, and submit the new file to “the librarian” for clearance. Then the librarian could either re-post the TXT file to replace the old, OR the new file could be titled “errata as of. . .” and could simply be added to the library.

That would leave the “discussion” forum open to be more free-wheeling where speculation, supposition, and idle pondering would not interfere with “solid facts” on file.

Thus both communities are served - the historian/restoration crowd would have their cake and the open forum crowd could eat theirs, too. History does not change. Current thinking does. Seems to make sense to me, but would it work?

What’s everyone’s observations/ opinions? Go ahead, PLEASE argue, comment, or something.

And Mark, there isn't a person here would would judge you harshly for just saying, "It's too much work for me, forget it."

Bret

[Guest Bret]

Sorry - have to add this:

There are files in the current "library" which are incorrect. We need some proceedure for correcting them or getting them removed.

Bret

[RoyC]

Good suggestion, Bret. Another vote here to correct misinformation in the archives.

Roy

[soundminded]

Two cases come to mind on other audio message boards sites whose names I will not mention. In one, a new AM arrived last summer and decided that there were too many contentious threads and that there were too many technical discussion on every board. He felt this was intimidating tyros and newbees. He instituted a policy where all technical discussions were relegated to one message board. The changes he made immediately became the most contentious issue that had ever been discussed there. Many long time participants were either thrown out for hurling insults at the AM or like me chose to no longer contribute. This board, once a ferment of discussion at all levels of technical expertise has been reduced to a playpen for beginners looking for advice on which home theater receiver to buy. On another site, one board devoted exclusively to audio cables, always a contentious issue, has a policy which prohibits discussion or even mention of double blind tests. While the clearly stated policy of that board recognizes that DBTs are the only method for determining the existance of subtle differences between audio components, the policy is justified by asserting that such discussion would only serve to promote unproductive flame wars. The AM of this board who is highly partisan is among the chief instigators who makes that board by far the most rancorous on the site, possibly worse than all of the other boards on that site combined while creating a cult mentality in most of its contributors. Meanwhile, another board on the same site has become a surrogate for the cable discussion board and the AM of the Cable board brings his rancor there as well where one recent thread he participated in had to be deleted because of abuse he hurled. BTW, DBTs are rarely discussed on any of those boards even where permitted and I cannot recall one flame war over them. I'm not saying that anything like that would happen here but the track record for this type of censorship by compartmentalization, even when well intentioned, is not good. Something to think about.

(BTW Mark, if you want to know which boards, PM or e-mail me.)

[administrator]

>The forum was arranged in two parts: 1) a library, to which

>anyone could contribute anything from a text file “trip

>report” to a spreadsheet of resort prices, photos of a recent

>trip, even theme park calendars. 2) an open-forum threaded

>discussion.

>Library submissions carried keywords (chosen by the

>contributor), a title, and a date. Their GREAT attribute was

>that once submitted, they were always easily available.

>What I don’t know is if you, Mark, have any interest in doing

>that or if the membership here would support it. It would

>take some work on all our parts. Tom Tyson might or might

>not be willing to share everything he has, and Ken Kantor

>might or might not be willing to share everything he has, and

>maybe none of us would be willing to share everything we have

>(photos of drivers, parts-lists, brochures).

>And Mark, there isn't a person here would would judge you

>harshly for just saying, "It's too much work for me, forget

>it."

Lately, much of my free time has been spent on server and software issues to increase reliability. I have also begun updating content, but there is a significant amount pending - including scanning.

I'm hesitant to embark on any new projects unless there is a very strong likelihood of success - I don't like going half-way. The volume of hits on the website is really staggering. I've been feeling more responsible to the community as readership grows.

I do like your idea, however, it will require strong support from everyone. I could setup a moderated forum where these pearls of wisdom are submitted. They would be viewable in that particular forum, but I would also replicate them on the main website so that they are indexed and searchable by Google and other search engines. My preference would be Adobe Acrobat format so we can make sure the documents appear for readers as we expect them to.

So Bret - did I hear you volunteer to head this up?

Mark

[administrator]

>cannot recall one flame war over them. I'm not saying that

>anything like that would happen here but the track record for

>this type of censorship by compartmentalization, even when

>well intentioned, is not good. Something to think about.

I really don't want to resort to having moderators for every forum and censoring topics, other than the very basic structure that has been established for years here. So far we've had a very good run at it.

If everyone supports Bret's idea, it may make the issue of additional compartmentalization moot. Well, I guess even that is up for debate!

I spoke to Ken Kantor a few years back about this very issue and he suggested the free-flowing exchange of information would benefit the community - one of the reasons I configured the system to give people immediate access to the forums upon registration, instead of waiting for me to approve accounts.

Mark

[rrcrain]

Perhaps the simplest solution would be to make the search feature in each forum more visible. Those of us who have been here for a while likely have probably poked around enough and have discovered this invaluable feature, whereas new visitors probably haven't resulting in them asking for information previously discussed.

This may be either a short term solution until a more permanent repository is created for the wealth of information on this web page, or a long term solution to keep the forums in their current format and more user (AKA novice) friendly.

Above all else, I appreciate the open, honest and friendly exchange of ideas, facts, suggestions, the professional integrity and patience displayed by nearly everyone in this forum.

[Guest Bret]

>So Bret - did I hear you volunteer to head this up? <

It'd be hard for me to "head it up" from MS, but I wouldn't mind doing some/much of the grunt work. I do own Acrobat, so I could turn just about anything into a PDF.

Just to make myself completely clear, the idea in the libraries is that single file "facts" go in. There is no discussion. So I'm unclear about what you meant about a "forum" for pearls of wisdom, unless you meant that every submission would be a "new post" and no follow-up would be allowed.

There COULD be discussion about a library submission in the "open forum" and if it needed to be edited or removed, Mr. or Mrs. "librarian" would have to do it.

And here's the only danger I see. Let's say that I submitted something stupid and there was a concensus of opinion that my file needed to be removed from the library. I'd like to think I'm mature enough to remove it without getting all emotional about it. Is that a safe assumption to make in an open forum?

The other way of doing exactly the same thing would be to submit "pearls of wisdom" in email to a specific email account. Then the "librarian" could include it in a section much like those (or even exactly those) that you already have. I don't know what Apache will let you do about searching by keyword, but obviously Acrobat has the ability to include keywords.

I dunno. . .

Is it possible to go under "Classic Speakers" and break it out into a "reference section" full of brochures and the like and a "user submitted" section full of "pearls of wisdom?"

OH, and the other thing is the strain on hardware created by such a thing. I'm pretty unhappy with the resolution of things I've submitted to you - in an effort to preserve disk space and keep bandwidth usage down. It would be better to get it to a resolution it can be read, but that can take-up some space with an Acrobat file.

I'm of the same mind as at least a few others here, Mark. I'd hate to see a bunch of rules about what can and can't be talked about and generally dividing the forum up.

It was just an idea. Do you need or want some help?

[kkantor]

How about using the "Wikipedia" model for the libraries, and leaving the forums as they are?

[administrator]

>Just to make myself completely clear, the idea in the

>libraries is that single file "facts" go in. There is no

>discussion. So I'm unclear about what you meant about a

>"forum" for pearls of wisdom, unless you meant that every

>submission would be a "new post" and no follow-up would be

>allowed.

The logistics are the big issue it sounds like. How about a forum titled "Pearls of Wisdom" (better suggestions welcome!) that is moderated in the sense that submissions go to the moderator for review. Once the moderator decides if they are relevant and edits the submission as necessary, he goes ahead and posts the submission. Those posts I could then replicate in the "main section" of the website in the appropriate area.

Perhaps I should begin making the distinction between the "Library" and the "Forum"? We can call the rest of the website the library to keep the terms straight. That would also add some pressure to keep all the content accurate, which you have all pointed out is not there yet.

I'll update the main page to reflect something like "Enter the Library."

>There COULD be discussion about a library submission in the

>"open forum" and if it needed to be edited or removed, Mr. or

>Mrs. "librarian" would have to do it.

Perfect.

>And here's the only danger I see. Let's say that I submitted

>something stupid and there was a concensus of opinion that my

>file needed to be removed from the library. I'd like to

>think I'm mature enough to remove it without getting all

>emotional about it. Is that a safe assumption to make in an

>open forum?

Well, if you don't, I will. So we're ok there! Remember, the server is heating my second bedroom.

If you are up for it, I'll create the forum today and lock it down with you as the moderator. I think you already have some ideas on topics that need to be addressed, and we can start a thread in the AR forum here regarding current content that needs to be fixed.

Mark

[administrator]

Hi Ken,

It's a good suggestion. I've thought about wiki and slash style interfaces, but I've been hesitant because I've spent so much time and cash on this forum software.

Let's give the moderated forum a chance. I think Bret has the energy to help me make it work. If it doesn't, I could move the website towards a wiki format.

Mark

[administrator]

One of the upcoming features for this forum software was static linking, allowing the posts to be archived by search engines like Google.

I'll find out what the status is on that. Maybe I could add a "Search" item to the navigation bar?

Mark

[Guest Bret]

>The logistics are the big issue it sounds like. How about a forum titled "Pearls of Wisdom" (better suggestions welcome!) that is moderated in the sense that submissions go to the moderator for review. Once the moderator decides if they are relevant and edits the submission as necessary, he goes ahead and posts the submission.<

This sounds a lot like our old "library/librarian" setup. Nothing goes into public view until someone says it does. Am I reading you correctly?

>Those posts I could then replicate in the "main section" of the website in the appropriate area.<

I'm getting lost. Maybe I'm suffering because I have to "unlearn" something, first.

>Perhaps I should begin making the distinction between the "Library" and the "Forum"?<

I want to be sure I understand what you are saying: The AR section is a "Forum" section. The KLH section is a "Forum" section. The place where you have duplications of brochures and the like is "library?" I got lost when we switched terminology to "main section." What's a "main section?"

>I'll update the main page to reflect something like "Enter the Library."<

Good luck and Godspeed, Mark.

Bret

[Pete B]

It seems that there are several things being addressed here and I'll comment because several point to threads that I started. I don't think there's any reason that the Forum should be restricted by the opinions of the purist perfectionists here. It's for discussion, people will not always agree and some have more than historical information to offer.

A person asks why their 10pi's don't sound right and I offer a few tips. Then I offer some information that shows that perhaps there are flaws in the basic design. I look for the good and the bad in design that's what makes it interesting. It gets blown out of proportion, rather than doing the work to solve the problem.

A person claims there's no .75" 2.75 ohm tweeter out there and I point one out, that doesn't mean I'm claiming it's a drop in replacement just responding to the post. I'm not going to do all the work, if someone wants to try that tweeter I'll do my best to help them match the voicing. It would be useful to find a low cost replacement.

The ForA-9 could be used as the basis for a reissue of the 9, I could do it but I'm not motivated at this point. It is relavent even if the "Forum police" think it's not. I'd probably select more cost effective drivers if it was going into even limited production.

Several here do irrationally worship the old designs and engineers/designers.

I do like the idea of expanding the library. I suggest calling it the reference section. I also like the idea of cleaning up threads and including them when applicable. Just one example is Roy's measurement of the change in damping material density. FAQs would be helpful also but it's a lot of work.

Wiki:

http://www.diyaudio.com/wiki/index.php?page=vintagehifi

Pete B.

[administrator]

>>The logistics are the big issue it sounds like. How about a

>forum titled "Pearls of Wisdom" (better suggestions welcome!)

>that is moderated in the sense that submissions go to the

>moderator for review. Once the moderator decides if they are

>relevant and edits the submission as necessary, he goes ahead

>and posts the submission.

>

>This sounds a lot like our old "library/librarian" setup.

>Nothing goes into public view until someone says it does. Am

>I reading you correctly?

Basically, yes. I like the way Pete B ran it down:

Forums (You are here!)

and

Library (Including the reference sections and visitor submissions.)

By "Library" I mean everything on this website other than the forums. The "Pearls of Wisdom" would simply be moderated forum that behaves like you and I have both discussed. Those items that get approved will stay there, but I will *also* duplicate them in the relevant section in the library.

For example, if you guys have a pearl of wisdom (or whatever you want to call that forum) regarding AR-3 and 3a cabinet volume, I/you/we would leave it in that forum, but I would also place it in the AR-3/a section of the library. I think those types of posts in particular are worth duplicating in the library.

>>Those posts I could then replicate in the "main section" of

>the website in the appropriate area.

>

>I'm getting lost. Maybe I'm suffering because I have to

>"unlearn" something, first.

By main section I'm simply referring to the rest of the website. These interactive forums are a relatively new thing in the timeline of this website. That's why I think it will make things more clear if we make the distinction between "Forums" and "Library." In the library, I'll split things out (look what I just did with the AR Classic and Limited section by using a horizontal line) by "Reference" and "Visitor Submitted."

>>Perhaps I should begin making the distinction between the

>"Library" and the "Forum"?

>

>I want to be sure I understand what you are saying: The AR

>section is a "Forum" section. The KLH section is a "Forum"

>section. The place where you have duplications of brochures

>and the like is "library?" I got lost when we switched

>terminology to "main section." What's a "main section?"

Yes, correct. Library = what I have called the "main section" for the last few years. Main section = everything else other than the forums.

>>I'll update the main page to reflect something like "Enter

>the Library."

>

>Good luck and Godspeed, Mark.

Ahaha - yeah, I'll need it.

Mark

[administrator]

>I do like the idea of expanding the library. I suggest calling

>it the reference section. I also like the idea of cleaning up

>threads and including them when applicable. Just one example

>is Roy's measurement of the change in damping material

>density. FAQs would be helpful also but it's a lot of work.

Agreed - I think I will split the library out into "Reference" and "Visitor Submitted" so it's very clear when you're in the AR-3/a section (for example) that the AR manuals, schematics, etc. are at the top of the page and under a horizontal line will be all the stuff submitted by visitors, e.g. repair advice, pictures, etc. that I/we found worthy of putting in the library. I just did something like this with my updates this morning in the AR Classic and Limited area, but didn't actually put any kind of "Reference" or "Visitor Submitted" label, just the horizontal line.

I probably won't duplicate entire forum threads in the library, but will definitely duplicate those posts that correct misunderstandings or are otherwise more authoritative than what is currently available in the library. That's the gist behind the "Pearls of Wisdom" forum in here. The Library really should have the most accurate information available.

Mark

[Guest Bret]

Ah ha ! Now I see. Regular, un-edited, user submissions. GREAT !

Now, how can we keep "discussion" out of that forum and force it back into this one (which is where it belongs). Or did you have a different vision?

I can immediately think of single messages from Tom, Steve, Ken, (and others, lots of others) which belong as either a "Pearl" (I sure hope someone comes-up with something better than "Pearl," it's just so. . .un-audio. . . even if it is cultured) or archive-ready material?

I'll tell you from both my thread searches and experience with archiving threads, it is VERY difficult to rid a thread of extraneous remarks and have it hang together at all. In my opinion, this is MUCH more difficult than putting together a FAQ.

Happy Easter, good people.

Bret

[RoyC]

Back at you with Easter greetings, Bret...and everyone.

Just wondering where something like Rich's great AR-11 crossover pics would go in the new scheme of things. We wouldn't want to lose track of photos that are posted which also serve as great reference material....ya know the old "picture is worth a thousand words..."

My observations regarding AR-3a damping material are only one person's observations from a relatively small sample that suggests a possible trend, but pictures of Rich's original AR-11 crossover or Loudsubz's AR-3a crossover with the alternate woofer coil are worth putting in an easily observable place. Should a separate area(s) be devoted to photos or will they be able to be integrated into the current plan?

just my 2 cents...

Roy