AR-3 Speaker Accuracy

[tysontom]

Soundminded comments in a previous post (#6115 "AR-3's in the house") about AR’s live-vs.-recorded concerts -- and particularly about the accuracy of the AR-3 -- were interesting and demonstrate an intense skepticism about the viability of the AR-3’s accuracy and critical acclaim during that period, so I took his post and made it into a series of questions that I will attempt to answer. First a few general comments about the demonstrations and how they were conducted.

The AR-3 live-vs.-recorded concerts were not “field trials,” as he suggested, nor were they rigged or staged demonstrations to try to fool the listeners other than to have the musicians occasionally lift their violin bows and continue as if playing. These were very honest recordings, designed to “let the chips fall where they may,” as someone once said. The recordings of the instruments were carefully made in a mostly echo-free, outdoor environment to minimize double-reverberation. Level controls on the AR-3 were carefully adjusted for the best balance, and AR was very careful about the placement of the microphones for each of the recordings. The concerts were not perfect, and there were differences. For example, the guitar and Nickelodeon performances were not as good as the Fine Arts Quartet performances due to the difficulties in recording the guitar and the Nickelodeon. The original organ live-vs.-recorded sessions using the AR-1 was successful, but the AR-1 would not have been able to reproduce the Fine Arts Quartet as accurately as the AR-3.

The AR-3 was not perfect -- far from it -- but Acoustic Research was able to demonstrate that the reproducing quality of this loudspeaker was very close to the actual live performance, something that no one had been able to successfully do in the past (nor has anyone done it since then).

Soundminded's questions from his post:

Q. Why wasn’t it (AR-3) universally accepted as the only speaker to buy in that price range?

A. Loudspeakers are the most “subjective” part of the audio chain. They evoke strong emotional feelings. Because of the differences in sound quality, and in the way people perceive the sound from speakers, it becomes a highly personal thing when it comes to deciding which one is “best” for each person. “One man’s meat is another man’s poison,” as the expression goes. No matter how good the reviews and accolades, or how accurate its response, the AR-3 had many critics. There were many “commercial axes to grind” as well. Jealous and sometimes vindictive competitors and audio stores frequently disparaged AR speakers, particularly the AR-3, in comparing them to other speakers -- I know this from personal experience and can recite numerous examples through the years. KLH dealers were particularly noted for this practice, and it is no secret that Henry Kloss was somewhat bitter when he left AR. Some KLH (and subsequently Advent) dealers would frequently “bad mouth” AR speakers. Therefore, despite the commercial success of AR during this period (1966 market share of 32.2%), there was still plenty of business to go around.

Q. Why didn’t other manufacturers work to build identical sounding clones as closely as they could?

A. I believe that other manufacturers understood and respected to some degree the success of the AR-3 design, and emulated it in many ways. For example, nearly all successful tweeter designs today are now dome-type tweeters, and this is a tribute to the AR-3’s success. There are still ribbons, horns and such, but the largest percentage of tweeters are dome versions.

Q. Did much of the listening public prefer loudspeakers which were less accurate or which had some kind of inaccuracy purposely built in?

A. This is a strangely cynical question. What loudspeaker company would intentionally build in "inaccuracy," other than to make a speaker seem brighter, more efficient or have heavier bass? This did happen, of course. I also believe that many buyers of loudspeakers during the day were *not* concerned about the issue of tonal accuracy. Some people also tend to be impulse buyers, and swayed by salesmen in dealer showrooms. But on the other hand, there were still many other people who viewed themselves as knowledgeable in the field of audio, and considered the merits of the AR-3 to be very important. These people would research the test reports, read the critical reviews and so forth, and then insist on hearing the AR-3 compared to other speakers in an unbiased setting. *Popular Science* magazine did such a comparison back in the mid-1960s, in which they set up about all of the known good loudspeakers of the day and compared them to each other, one by one. The AR-3 came out clearly on top, but there would always be naysayers and critics.

Q. Was there something about the way commercial recordings were made which made them sound less accurate when played through AR-3 than through other speakers?

A. You have lost me on this question. I don’t agree with that assessment. An AR-3 was capable of sounding very accurate on commercial recordings, but perhaps not as bright or “forward” as some people would like to hear the music. I have heard of people who recently attended a live concert, and then upon hearing the same music played on the home stereo system, state that the live music sounded “dead” compared to their stereo speakers at home. During the Fine Arts Quartet live-vs.-recorded concerts, several listeners concluded that both the live music and the reproduced music sounded less “bright” than they though it should, since this was an “audio” demonstration. Perhaps it was the power of suggestion.

Q. Why wasn’t the AR-3a manufactured to sound exactly like the AR-3?

A. As good as it was, the AR-3 has ever been proclaimed “perfect.” There was always room for improvement. What is being said here is that the AR-3 was a very accurate loudspeaker, and it was quantified in objective-test measurements, and subjectively demonstrated in the live-vs.-recorded concerts -- the “ultimate” loudspeaker comparison test. Can you name any other loudspeaker with those credentials? The AR-3a took the merits of the AR-3 and improved them. The results are well-known, and its performance is superior to the AR-3 in many respects. It’s not perfect either, of course, so the work continued to make things better as time went on.

Q. Did it overcome some shortcomings in the AR-3?

A. The AR-3a improved in the area of off-axis dispersion, and its power response is better than the AR-3. The lower crossover of the AR-3a improved the lower-midrange response in the AR-3, but ironically the AR-3a received some criticism from *CR* about its upper-bass, lower-midrange response, and it did not receive as high a rating as the earlier AR-3. This was controversial, and the testing method at *CR* came into review about this time.

Q. Was it a concession to market preferences?

A. I’m sure that the AR-3a represented primarily an attempt to improve the AR-3; to correct any known problems with that design. But a company can’t exist without innovation and new products, and AR had the same commercial consideration as all other companies to perpetuate the business, so improvements were inevitable.

Q. Was it a deliberate step backward being less accurate than the AR-3 (a surprising suggestion)?

A. I honestly don’t know how to answer this ludicrous question. Why would any sane engineer design something as “a step backward?” The AR-3a is not less accurate than the AR-3; it may well be more accurate, but it was never “subjectively” tested to the same degree as the AR-3, so there are no references to it accuracy in live-vs.-recorded demonstrations. It might have performed better than the AR-3, but we will probably never know.

--Tom Tyson

[Guest bocoogto]

Thank you, Tom, for the interesting description of so many aspects of the AR-3. I, too, experienced many of the things you describe in the '60's with audio salesmen badmouthing AR. They liked to sell speakers with more profit margin. It was so typical to compare a very bright-sounding speaker system with the AR's and try to convince you brighter was better. The horn tweeters, especially, were very bright. The KLH Model Six was a very well-engineered system, sounding very smooth at about half the price of the AR-3 with sacrifice in the low bass.

We had a "speaker party" at my house in 1967, where we compared an AR-3a, KLH-6, KLH-5, AR-2a, and Large Allison in A-B tests selected five switches. Everyone thought the AR-3a was the best-sounding system, with the KLH-6 the "best buy." We used a McIntosh MC-60 tube power amp for power.

I have compared my original AR-3a's with many systems in my home through the years, and have found very few in a stereo pair to sound as realistic and listener-fatigue free as the AR-3a. My AR LST-II's are not nearly as smooth as the AR-3a's.

[Steve F]

Interesting discussion. Having been on the inside for many years, it is not entirely correct to think that loudspeaker companies strive only for “accuracy” above all else. The original Large Advent was voiced to sound as satisfying and convincing with as wide a range of commercial recordings as possible. This was not done cynically on Advent’s part; they weren’t trying to “get away with” something or “pull the wool over the customer’s eyes.” They were trying to make a product that a wide spectrum of customers would genuinely enjoy. If they were successful in achieving their goal, the result would be 1) a product they could be proud of, and 2) strong sales and profits. Is there anything wrong with that? No, that’s what any good company tries to do: make a credible product (or offer a credible service) that people find worth paying for.

AR’s almost obsessive pursuit of “accuracy” (as they defined “accuracy,” with which there was and remains considerable debate in the industry) to the exclusion of the realities of commercial recording methods and procedures, and to the exclusions of marketing realities, cost them dearly. Once their technological lead vanished (and, remember, technological leads ALWAYS vanish, at some point: PC’s operate as easily as Macs today and now, even N. Korea has the bomb), AR was FINISHED, FINISHED, FINISHED in the marketplace.

This question might actually hold a key (“a”, not “the,” because there were many) to Advent’s success and AR’s demise:

“Q. Was there something about the way commercial recordings were made which made them sound less accurate when played through AR-3 than through other speakers?”

(Note that during the AR-3's time period, '58-'67, AR was very strong in the market. It wasn't until the 3a came along in the late '60's--and Advent burst on the scene in '69-- that AR began to fade.)

Most commercial recording studios at the time used JBL or E-V or Altec recording monitors. All had horrendous mid/upper-mid response peaks. When a recording was EQ’d by the recording engineer to sound realistic on playback, the “presence region” of the recording would almost certainly be toned down. The net result on an “accurate” AR speaker—without an artificial “presence rise”—could be a laid-back, too-distant sound. On an Advent, with a slight midrange emphasis—more than an AR-2ax, but less than a JBL monitor—the result would be a pleasing forwardness, one that many listeners would characterize as “lively” or “snappy,” instead of (AR) dull. Was the 3a more accurate than a Large Advent? Depends on what the frame of reference was. Live music? Probably the AR. Commercial recording? Probably the Advent.

Personally, I have always preferred the way the AR-4x-2ax-3a sounded compared to the Advents, KLH’s, and EPI’s of the day. To my ears, the AR’s were smoother, more natural, and less colored—on good recordings. But I certainly understand both why those other speakers often sounded better in a dealer showroom A-B comparison, and also how elusive and uncertain the notion of absolute “accuracy” is.

Steve F.

[soundminded]

"Soundminded comments in a previous post (#6115 "AR-3's in the house") about AR’s live-vs.-recorded concerts -- and particularly about the accuracy of the AR-3 -- were interesting and demonstrate an intense skepticism about the viability of the AR-3’s accuracy "

On the contrary, I heard the two demonstrations (of them was Lopes playing the guitar and the other the Nickelodeon) and I was convinced that AR3 was very accurate. It's been over 40 years and I haven't forgotten it. I just couldn't afford them or other equipment necessary to do them justice at the time. But then I was after all only about 13 years old.

" Level controls on the AR-3 were carefully adjusted for the best balance"

Do you mean they were not set to their indicated flat positions? Surprising. What does that suggest about the value of those setting indicators. Now fast forward to today where most audiophiles shudder at the mere mention of tone controls on a preamplifier or worst hell of all, an equalizer.

"For example, the guitar and Nickelodeon performances were not as good as the Fine Arts Quartet performances due to the difficulties in recording the guitar and the Nickelodeon. "

Perhaps I was not as critical a listener in those days. Those were the two demos I heard and they were very convincing.

"The original organ live-vs.-recorded sessions using the AR-1 was successful, but the AR-1 would not have been able to reproduce the Fine Arts Quartet as accurately as the AR-3."

Hardly surprising considering that it used an 8" Altec or Western Electric tweeter. But then again, when you read the Lansing Heritige site's story, in the mid fifties, there was no commercially available program material with information above 8 Khz. That changed drastically by around 1957/1958.

"Loudspeakers are the most “subjective” part of the audio chain. They evoke strong emotional feelings. Because of the differences in sound quality, and in the way people perceive the sound from speakers, it becomes a highly personal thing when it comes to deciding which one is “best” for each person. "

That's why the live versus recorded demos are so valuable. It takes personal preference out of the equation. You close your eyes and the degree of difference you hear is the degree of shortcoming of the equipment. Greater difference means lower fidelity period. What more objective criteria could one ask for?

"Jealous and sometimes vindictive competitors and audio stores frequently disparaged AR speakers, particularly the AR-3, in comparing them to other speakers "

In my experience, most dealers who carried one brand carried the other as well. They could hardly care less what Henry Kloss and Edgar Vilcher said about each other, they were much more concerned about what their CPAs said about their bottom lines.

"For example, nearly all successful tweeter designs today are now dome-type tweeters, and this is a tribute to the AR-3’s success. There are still ribbons, horns and such, but the largest percentage of tweeters are dome versions."

Interesting how the dome tweeter has evolved into a species allowing for construction of unbearably shrill sounding loudspeakers which stand out in rapid comparisons among inexperienced listeners but are extremely fatiguing and unmusiclike in prolonged listening. OTOH, few manufacturers have yet to equal the bass performance of the original AR acoustic suspension design even after fifty years to copy and improve on it. The current vogue is for speakers with small woofers in enclosures based on optimizing ported designs using Theil Small parameters.

"Q. Did much of the listening public prefer loudspeakers which were less accurate or which had some kind of inaccuracy purposely built in?

A. This is a strangely cynical question."

Not really cynical. First of all, it's likely most people rarely or never even heard live performances of unamplified music, especially serious music like classical music or jazz to have a reference to compare to. If you lived in a house with musicians, even amateurs like I did and attended a lot of concerts, you took it for granted and even so, acoustic memory is notoriously short. Most commercially produced recordings were gimmicked to produce the most marketable sound and that's what a lot of people wanted. It's still just as true today. While audiophiles may hesitate at the thought of tweaking a knob to alter the sound of a recording, recording engineers have no such reservations. All of those hundreds of dials and switches on those mixdown consoles are there for a reason and the engineers know they are there to deliver what they think will sell the best, not what they heard at the recording session.

"These people would research the test reports, read the critical reviews and so forth, and then insist on hearing the AR-3 compared to other speakers in an unbiased setting. *Popular Science* magazine did such a comparison back in the mid-1960s, in which they set up about all of the known good loudspeakers of the day and compared them to each other, one by one. The AR-3 came out clearly on top, but there would always be naysayers and critics."

Comparing one speaker with another even in controlled listening tests is clearly inferior to comparing them one at a time to a live reference. This is exactly the same mistake people make today comparing audiophile wires with each other when they should be comparing them to an absolute reference which is a shunt.

"Q. Was there something about the way commercial recordings were made which made them sound less accurate when played through AR-3 than through other speakers?

A. You have lost me on this question. "

Read Steve F's comment about this. I think he understood my question.

"Q. Did it overcome some shortcomings in the AR-3?

A. The AR-3a improved in the area of off-axis dispersion, and its power response is better than the AR-3. The lower crossover of the AR-3a improved the lower-midrange response in the AR-3, but ironically the AR-3a received some criticism from *CR* about its upper-bass, lower-midrange response, and it did not receive as high a rating as the earlier AR-3. "

AR3a's woofer lost nearly an entire octave off the top end of its range. This was assigned to the new dome midrange. Was it up to the task? Maybe not entirely. LST was an acknowledgement that further improvement could be made by adding another midrange driver. Even today, it is hard to get a small midrange dome to respond well much below 1 Khz. Look at models from Morell and Vifa. AR9 finally took the bull by the horns and dealt with it square on by adding an 8" driver taking on the entire range from 200 hz to about 1.5 khz.

"Q. Was it a deliberate step backward being less accurate than the AR-3 (a surprising suggestion)?

A. I honestly don’t know how to answer this ludicrous question. Why would any sane engineer design something as “a step backward?”"

The answer is because ultimately, companies are in business to make money and they will respond to what the market wants. I once ran into a Tannoy salesman at a trade show who told me that they had made the sound of latest version of their concentric monitor brighter sounding to compete head to head against Altec's speaker because that's what the American market preferred.

"The AR-3a is not less accurate than the AR-3; it may well be more accurate, but it was never “subjectively” tested to the same degree as the AR-3, so there are no references to it accuracy in live-vs.-recorded demonstrations. It might have performed better than the AR-3, but we will probably never know."

That is a shame. The live versus recorded demos were not merely a convincing marketing tool, they served to establish Acoustic Research and AR3 as a benchmark which no serious music lover who wanted to listen to recorded music as accurately as possible could afford to ignore.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the mere designation "AR3a" was a marketing strategy playing on the reputation of AR3. While conceptiually basically the same idea being a 3 way 12" acoustic suspension "bookshelf" system, the midrange was different, the tweeter was different, and the crossover network and crossover frequencies were different. Only the Box, stuffing, and woofer remained the same. Later on, comparable changes warranted an entirely new model number. Sometimes when sales start to decline, a new model is needed just for the marketing department to have something to talk about that the dealers and customers haven't heard before.

Then this still leaves the questions; What was the purpose of introducing AR3a and what sacrifices if any were traded off from AR3 to achieve those ends? When dealing with reproducing commercially made recordings having an enormous number of variables from one to another, does the term accuracy have any real relevance?

[stan461]

>

>Then this still leaves the questions; What was the purpose of

>introducing AR3a and what sacrifices if any were traded off

>from AR3 to achieve those ends?

At this time in the discussion, I think you(we) will have to refer to those who worked for AR during that period. Speculations or inuendos of why they introduced the AR3a is starting to look "silly" at best.

>When dealing with reproducing

>commercially made recordings having an enormous number of

>variables from one to another, does the term accuracy have any

>real relevance?

Are you serious? That would be when the recording sounds exactly like the original event. Warts and all. You do admit that progress has been made since the wax cylinder.

[soundminded]

>>

>>Then this still leaves the questions; What was the purpose

>of

>>introducing AR3a and what sacrifices if any were traded off

>>from AR3 to achieve those ends?

>

>At this time in the discussion, I think you(we) will have to

>refer to those who worked for AR during that period.

>Speculations or inuendos of why they introduced the AR3a is

>starting to look "silly" at best.

Insofar as referring to those who worked for AR during that period or at least second hand information from those who talked with them, I think I made that point in the other thread "AR3 in the house" of which this thread is a follow on.

>>When dealing with reproducing

>>commercially made recordings having an enormous number of

>>variables from one to another, does the term accuracy have

>any

>>real relevance?

>

>Are you serious? That would be when the recording sounds

>exactly like the original event. Warts and all. You do admit

>that progress has been made since the wax cylinder.

This is a very serious question. Before we had a VIR signal in our television transmission system, the initials NTSC was jokingly referred to by some people as meaning "Never The Same Color." Haven't you had experience where some recordings were too bright sounding, some not bright enough, some bass shy, some with bass that was overprominent, etc.? When there is no reference standard for making a recoding or broadcast, then equipment which may sound accurate in some circumstances may sound entirely inaccurate in others. These variables were among the functions bass and treble controls were supposed to help us deal with but even those have been taken away from many audiophiles who have been taught to shun them. It's like having a color TV set with no tint or color saturation controls and expecting every broadcast to be correctly balanced. Even with our improved NTSC system, it was always far behind SECAM and PAL in this regard which always had the same colors due to a true reference signal component. So then what can you do? One strategy (mine) is to try to design or adjust for the most accurate sound for the largest number of recordings which made a serious effort at accuracy but to have provisions for adjusting for others which are sufficiently different from the average to be bothersome. What do you do?

[Guest molecules]

Soundminded touched on the accuracy of the recording. Perhaps, since AR controlled the recording, they could get it more accurate than a commercial recording. I found this attachment on the JBL heritage site (traitor, yes I know) reprinted from High Fidelity, June 1972. Check the last paragraph befor the box. Perhaps an accurate speaker cannot accurately record the original event because the recordings are doctored ! Perhaps an innacurate speaker can complenent the heavy equalization done by the recording engineer and therefore sound more true ?

PS Didn't Mark Levinson do some live vs recorded comparisons with his Red Rose speakers ?

Dave

[tysontom]

>Soundminded touched on the accuracy of the recording.

>Perhaps, since AR controlled the recording, they could get it

>more accurate than a commercial recording. I found this

>attachment on the JBL heritage site (traitor, yes I know)

>reprinted from High Fidelity, June 1972. Check the last

>paragraph befor the box. Perhaps an accurate speaker cannot

>accurately record the original event because the recordings

>are doctored ! Perhaps an innacurate speaker can complenent

>the heavy equalization done by the recording engineer and

>therefore sound more true ?

>

>PS Didn't Mark Levinson do some live vs recorded comparisons

>with his Red Rose speakers ?

>

>Dave

AR did not “control” the recording as you suggest. Your humorous theory at the end of that paragraph isn’t what happened at all with the AR live-vs.-recorded concerts. Someone once called this sort of theorizing a “beautiful hypothesis slain by an ugly fact.” The opposite was true: there was no EQ mix-down in the AR live-vs.-recorded sessions. That phenomenon occurs in recording studios in which RE's use EQ boards to doctor the end-result to make it more commercially viable. The AR recordings were made in a semi-anechoic environment with calibrated, condenser-type recording microphones fed *directly* into the input section of an Ampex 350-2 stereo tape recorder, recorded at 15 ips.

So what was Soundminded suggesting about the questionable accuracy of ARs with commercial music vs. KLH, for example? The early recordings, particularly pop and jazz, were definitely monitored on relatively peaky, strident horn-type monitor loudspeakers; and the recording engineers would listen to the playback of a master tape through these harsh-sounding loudspeakers and reduce the high-frequency level equalization during the mix down to reduce the shrill of the midrange and treble output. Thus to compensate, the finished product frequently had reduced mid- and high-frequency levels which then subsequently sounded great on the peaky monitor speakers, but when played on the “reticent-sounding” AR speaker, the end result was frequently described as “dull” or lacking in high frequencies. It would certainly seem that the AR was tracking the reduced signal correctly, or “accurately.” When that same recording was played through KLH Sixes or Advents, both with slight upper-midrange peaks, this “missing” high frequency was restored, and the music sounded more lively, or more “accurate” to some listeners.

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/413.jpg

(A) 1/3-Octave Advent. Exceptionally smooth overall with slight presence peak in upper midrange response.

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/414.jpg

( AR-10Pi 1/3-Octave response. Notice smooth response but lack of peak in treble, but slightly downward-sloping treble.

Steve F put it best in his post:

“Most commercial recording studios at the time used JBL or E-V or Altec recording monitors. All had horrendous mid/upper-mid response peaks. When a recording was EQ’d by the recording engineer to sound realistic on playback, the “presence region” of the recording would almost certainly be toned down. The net result on an “accurate” AR speaker—without an artificial “presence rise”—could be a laid-back, too-distant sound. On an Advent, with a slight midrange emphasis—more than an AR-2ax, but less than a JBL monitor—the result would be a pleasing forwardness, one that many listeners would characterize as “lively” or “snappy,” instead of (AR) dull. Was the 3a more accurate than a Large Advent? Depends on what the frame of reference was. Live music? Probably the AR. Commercial recording? Probably the Advent.”

>PS Didn't Mark Levinson do some live vs recorded comparisons

>with his Red Rose speakers ?

>

>Dave

I think Mark Levinson was among several manufacturers and upscale audio dealers -- usually at audio shows -- attempting live-vs.-recorded demonstrations, but none was done publicly, to my knowledge, in which unbiased judgments were made on the efficacy of these demonstrations. I have personally attended three or four such demonstrations in which (on different occasions) Dunlavy Soverigns, KLH Model Nines, Model Twelves and Advents were compared to live music. These demonstrations were fun and exciting, but not realistic. Henry Kloss was in attendance at one of the KLH Nine dealer live-vs.-recorded demonstrations, but even he was disappointed in the way the recordings were done. The recordings were not carefully made, and double-reverberation and sync problems were always present. Had the insrtuments been carefully recorded in a semi-anechoic environment, and care taken with the levels and sync, the end-result might have been more successful.

I think the problem with modern-day live-vs.-recorded demonstrations is that most current high-end speakers are relatively directional (for good “imaging”), and thus have questionable power response. Many modern speakers have excellent on-axis frequency response and good treble dispersion, but relatively poor power response. Without wide dispersion throughout *both* the mid-range and treble frequency band, the likelihood of accurately replicating the acoustic timbre of a live instrument is practically non-existent.

--Tom Tyson

[Guest Bret]

>and the music sounded more lively, or more “accurate” to some listeners. <

And, of course, the playback would not BE a more accurate reproduction of the signal fed the speaker, but the sound coming from the speaker would be a more accurate representation of what was recorded before the middle frequencies were trod-upon by the recording engineer.

In this case, wouldn't this be a bit like using an EQ to get back what the recording took away?

Tom - haven't you been reading the other threads. . . the only proper way to arrive at "good sound" is for it to be accurate; as in "lab-test proven!"

The funny thing about this is that I was emailed a link to a JBL site, I think it was, where some very expensive A/Bing was done. The listeners preferred the flatter, more lab-accurate speakers even when they had no clue what they were listening to.

So score at least one for accuracy.

Now if we just knew what recording they were listening to.

Bret

[Guest molecules]

Tom,

I did not mean that at all, quite the opposite.

The article I posted noted equalization applied to COMMERCIAL recordings. By AR having control, I meant that AR's live vs demo were made possible by ACCURATE, non-commercial recordings, (the accuracy of which you have nicely demonstrated)

The second thought I submitted for consideration was that an accurate speaker may not sound "real" with these heavily equalized COMMERCIAL recordings.

Dave

[tysontom]

>Tom,

>

>I did not mean that at all, quite the opposite.

>

>The article I posted noted equalization applied to COMMERCIAL

>recordings. By AR having control, I meant that AR's live vs

>demo were made possible by ACCURATE, non-commercial

>recordings, (the accuracy of which you have nicely

>demonstrated)

>

>The second thought I submitted for consideration was that an

>accurate speaker may not sound "real" with these heavily

>equalized COMMERCIAL recordings.

>

Dave,

I apologize for misinterpreting your message. I read it fairly carefully, but still managed not to get the gist of what you meant. In any event, thanks for your indulgence!

As you know, I have vigorously defended the live-vs.-recorded AR demonstrations; I still think this was landmark work done by Edgar Villchur, and shows that he clearly understood the issues of making these difficult recordings. It unmistakably highlighted the accuracy of the AR-3, and deflected criticism of AR's heavy reliance on objective-test measurment techniques. Villchur always insisted that quantitative testing always required validation, and the true live-versus-recorded demonstrations represented the ultimate test of the AR-3's design.

On the other hand, live-vs.-recorded demonstrations are so difficult to conduct successfully that most speaker companies (since AR's demonstrations of the 1960s and 70s) have avoided the risk of failure and possible ramifications of public disdain. Rather than embrace the prospect of proving the accuracy of their products, many manufacturers have pooh-poohed the live-vs.-recorded process itself much in the manner of double-blind testing.

--Tom Tyson

[draftingmonkey]

Thanks guys for an enjoyable and informative discussion. Wanted to let you all know that I really have appreciated the information on AR's that you have been sharing. Big fan myself and have the following:

2 pair 3A's

1 pair 2AX's

3 pair 4X's

Am learning a lot and look forward to your continuing discussion.

James

[RoyC]

Having spent a fair amount of time with friends in the recording business there was concern in the old days (of pop music) as to how the recording would sound through car radios, home radios, and eventually small "home stereos". This along with preparing the recording for vinyl amounted to a high degree of compression and equalization.

So many showrooms (if you could even call them that) used the latest pop music to sell speaker systems beginning in the late 60's that its doubtful that the more "accurate" system could even be discerned much less appreciated. If AR stood out to the typical customer it was because the shop was actually able and willing to demonstrate the incredible AR bass response. The high price tag, however, also stood out next to the likes of Advent, Asian offerings and the west coast stuff..

AR was always popular with classical music fans where I suspect greater dynamic range and "accuracy" could be discerned and appreciated by folks who probably could also afford the higher price tag. Then Bose came along touting the "realism" of reflected sound providing competition in that category.

Some of the old recording studios I have been in had questionable monitor speakers (in my opinion) as well as cables and equipment that would make today's fans of overpriced, audiophile cables puke.

The last recording studio I was in could slice and dice the recording down to an individual note by digitally manipulating an incredible number of parameters, and then save each session to computer. The final mixdown was to a "commercial" Western Digital hard drive and sent out for further doctoring and transfer to disc.

Further, modern home and vehicle electronics provide a gazillion "DSP" settings and multiple speakers, unavailable in the old days.

It seems the innocence and undeniable success of the AR demonstrations of acoustic music have been rendered less relevant today by a very subjective and creative process on both ends of the chain. A process ironically spawned by AR's invention of the modern, accurate loudspeaker.

Roy

[Guest MIRO]

What about AR-90. Anyone can help about pricing (excelent condition)

[ninohernes]

What problems with the AR-3 was the AR-3a trying to address??

[tysontom]

>What problems with the AR-3 was the AR-3a trying to

>address??

Joe,

The AR-3, as good as it was, needed still better dispersion. The ideal tweeter might have been a "pulsating-sphere tweeter," in which the dispersion is uniform at all frequencies. This type of device would have almost perfect acoustic-power response. Of course, no one has ever invented such a device, so work continued on conventional tweeters. Whereas the original AR-3 took a giant step forward in uniform dispersion in the treble, the AR-3a further refined and improved upon this tweeter performance. Another goal in the design of the AR-3a was to lower the woofer/midrange crossover frequency, and the AR-3a achieved this with the 575 Hz crossover vs. the AR-3's 1000 Hz crossover.

--Tom Tyson