Live vs Recorded Demos

[Guest palomar]

I have a question concerning the Live vs Recorded Demonstrations that AR used to run. I apologize if this has been answered elsewhere - I wasn't able to find it.

In any event, my understanding was that in many cases, the audience did not realize that a switch from live to the ARs had taken place. My question is in regards to improvements in the speakers over time.

If the switch was often imperceptible with AR3s, for example, then wouldn't any change in the sound to that speaker, to an AR3a, for example, cause a slightly more perceptible switch from live to recorded. And wouldn't further changes, say to an AR11, and ultimately to an AR9, for example, cause an even more noticeable switch from live to recorded, assuming that the original AR3s were almost an exact match?

By the way, I think that the live vs recorded demonstrations (which I unfortunately never attended) were a great idea, and the utlimate test when all is said and done. I'd love to see how some 'perfectionist' speakers would do in these tests!

Gary

[Guest bocoogto]

AR did this in the '50's using AR1's for the speakers. I was in my teens and very interested in audio. I believe the amplifiers were McIntosh. The recording was on reel-to reel tape (15 inches per second) made in an anechoic (echo-free)chamber, so playback in the concert hall would create the hall's acoustics.

The performance was either a trio or quartet of string instruments in front of a small audience. As the musicians performed the piece, a recording of the same piece was played through the AR1's and the musicians pretended to keep playing. The audience could not distinguish between the live and recorded program.

I remember this being quite an advertising subject for AR for several years after that. "High Fidelity" and "Audio" magazines ran advertisements describing the event. I think one of the audio magazines featured an article describing this in detail.

Isn't this amazing for 50 years ago? I, too, wonder how todays "high end" speakers would do in a test like this. AR was able to do this because the AR1 was one of the most accurate speakers of its day.

[Guest bocoogto]

I'm surprised at the feeble response to this posting--you'd think this would be of interest to AR enthusiasts using this board. Most of them are probably too young to remember what a big deal this was. Very likely, the tremendous success of AR in the '60's & '70's was partially due to this demonstration and the publicity it received.

[soundminded]

I attended two such demonstrations at consumer trade shows in New York City in the 1960s, one with a guitarist and one with a Nickelodeon. This topic was discussed at length some months ago. Check the archives. There is a lot of information about the particular details and significance of these demonstrations. Apparantly among the first was in the 1950s conducted not by AR but by the New York Audio League, predecessor to the Audio Engineering Society. They A/B'd 4 AR1s against an Aolean Skinner pipe organ at Aolean Hall. Photos of the A/B of AR3 playing against the Julliard String Quartet and print advertising around it was published for a long time. The last I am aware of was in the mid 1970s when Buddy Rich played his drums at the AR factory against a pair of AR 10 pis whose only modification was reportedly additional internal bracing of the cabinet. Yes this is a very important subject and one which IMO is overlooked or taken for granted. Explanations of why these demos were successful but more importantly why AR speakers were not adopted universally as the standard by which other speakers were compared or why so many consumers preferred commercially made recordings reproduced by competitor's speakers is something you would think would generate more interest.