Ken Kantor on classical music et. al.

[Guest peterh]

I enjoyed hearing Ken Kantor's views on speaker design and audio in general, and I have a couple questions for him if he's still around and cares to answer. However I also want to challenge his opinion on classical music as a no longer relevant standard for judging audio equipment.

First of all, classical isn't dead. Just as importantly, the acoustic music market (from what I can tell) has actually expanded over the last 20 years as a result of the legitimation of jazz as high culture, and the growing role played by public radio, which fosters such genres as folk, international, and Celtic music. So if a speaker does an especially good job reproducing non-electronic instruments and natural acoustics, it will have an advantage with these genres. I wonder if Ken's taste is a little bit stuck in the heyday of hard rock. Sure, there are all the kids with their ipods and boom boxes, but they tend to be poor in comparison to the yuppies who listen to NPR and at least force themselves to like jazz. In my home town (admittedly a college town) I can listen to classical music and jazz seven days a week. I realize this is not typical, but it seems to me that the great orchestras are still there, the local orchestras and college orchestras are still there, the vocal music groups are still there, there's no shortage of new classical recordings (which is amazing considering that technology has resurrected thousands of great older recordings) and plenty of kids still study the violin, saxophone, flute, and of course the piano. It's true that if you walked into a Sam Goody's in 1962 the classical section would be much the largest section while now it's much smaller, but the jazz section is much larger and - surprisingly and pleasingly - it's full of reissues of classic acoustic recordings by Miles, Parker, Coltrane, Monk, Sonny Rollins, et al., plus there are lots of new acoustic jazz artists. "Jazz rock" I am happy to report (Ken might not agree) proved to be mostly a fad and jazz returned to a fluid, mostly acoustic approach. Even in 1962 most listeners weren't into classical, but many listeners with a collector mentality and the money to buy recordings and good equipment were. And today, judging from what "audiophile" labels put out, there's still a lot of interest in acoustic jazz and classical among the lucky folks who can afford "high-end" gear. (How many tweaked remasterings of "Kind of Blue" can you want?) In part, jazz and classical lean on public subsidy, but it has always been that way with classical, and jazz has now attained the status of classical music, type 2. So I don't think designing speakers to reproduce "the natural sound of acoustic instruments" is a bad idea. And since there is a trade-off involved in designing speakers to play loudly, those of us who prefer less damaging listening levels should be able to get more pleasure for our money by purchasing speakers designed primarily for accuracy within a (relatively) limited dynamic range. Now where Bose is concerned, and a number of other designs that deliberately create reflected sound, my question is this: since a good recording will include the sound of the hall (even a live stadium rock recording will include some artifacts of the venue) isn't it a mistake to compound the reverberation on the recording with extra room reverberation? Doesn't this amount to reverberating the reverberation so you hear the hall sound twice? I get a good sense of space with two-channel front-firing speakers if the recording is up to it. To be honest, sometimes I get a kick out of hearing the recording just as it is, warts and all. It's the sense of transparency, of listening back into the original master, if not the original performance.

Now for a couple quick questions for Mr. K or anyone who would like to respond: I have a beat up pair of AR3s I got on ebay. I think all the drivers work but the pots seem to be very dusty with hardly any live spots. These have cloth surrounds. Are these worth going in and fixing the pots? Or would I be better off with AR3a's, or, for that matter, NHT 2.9s, which I remember being impressed by at a store some years back. The AR3 has a shelved down midrange, though possibly that could be adjusted for. I remember being very impressed as a child by a pair of AR3s I heard at an audio show in the early 60s. (Yeah, I'm an old dude, but I think I can hear 12Khz. Maybe I should check again..!) And would I need to replace crossover components to bring these up to their original performance level? I read an interview with Jon Bau, designer of the Spica TC50, where he said that anyone buying old Spicas should be aware that the capacitors "head south after five years" and it got me to thinking that you can never know whether old speakers are delivering their original performance unless you have the expertise to know what innards have to be updated, and the time and budget for it, and so you're kind of stuck if you don't have that knowledge (as I don't.) Thanks for any help! - Peter

[onplane]

>

>Now for a couple quick questions for Mr. K or anyone who would

>like to respond: I have a beat up pair of AR3s I got on ebay.

>I think all the drivers work but the pots seem to be very

>dusty with hardly any live spots. These have cloth surrounds.

>Are these worth going in and fixing the pots?

>

Peter, the low cost, permanent solution to the pots is:

1. Completely by-pass the tweeter pot

2. Cut the lead to the mid-pot wiper and solder to the top of the pot

Believe it or not, but these changes get you closer to a flat frequency response. Most likely to achieve a totally flat response, you'll still need a "slight" treble boost.

Peter, even if you spend an enormous amount of time cleaning and plating the pot wipers, once those dissimilar metals are back in the presence of current and heat, … they’ll just start corroding all over again.

Hope this helps ...

Regards,

Jerry

PS: Another thing that really helps with these "power hungry" vintage speakers is to passively bi-amp. What this does is off load the heavy current demand caused by the woofers from the amp powering those very sensitive drivers (mid & tweeter).

[soundminded]

>I enjoyed hearing Ken Kantor's views on speaker design and

>audio in general, and I have a couple questions for him if

>he's still around and cares to answer. However I also want to

>challenge his opinion on classical music as a no longer

>relevant standard for judging audio equipment.

Thanks for bringing up this subject. I also have a question in this regard for Ken. If accurate reproduction of the sound of acoustical instruments isn't the goal of expensive home sound reproduction equipment, what is? What does the term high fidelity mean today and does it still have any relevance to sound reproduction?

Here's a reprint of the article by Byron Janis which appeared in WSJ and was referenced in the locked thread. I coppied it from another web site which reprinted it in full. Hope I'm not breaking any rules by pasting it here. While this may be news to audiophiles, it's old to performers and especially conductors.

The Sounds of Music

Want a concert seat with good acoustics? So does the pianist

BY BYRON JANIS

Saturday, January 27, 2007 12:00 a.m. EST

Acoustics are rarely discussed from the concert pianists' point of view, yet arguably it affects us the most. An audience member unhappy with the sound in their part of the auditorium can change seats, but we cannot. Therefore the position of the piano on stage is of utmost importance --moving it only a foot in either direction can make an enormous difference in the sound and therefore in the performance.

As you are rehearsing on stage, you wonder why you have spent so much time at home fine tuning the pedaling, the dynamics, and the tempos when they will all need altering in this new acoustical environment. These last-minute adjustments remain one of the concert pianist's major challenges. Whatever sound we hear on stage governs our performance and, one could almost say, becomes our "co-creator." If we find the sound to be on the dry side, we will probably use more pedal to help add color. I will even sometimes try to quicken the tempo ever so slightly to ensure that the music has its proper flow. If the sound is too reverberant (overly resonant and losing clarity), the reverse would apply.

A different kind of problem presented itself with the building of Lincoln Center's Avery Fisher Hall in 1962. The acousticians seemed to have been interested in a highly articulated, clear, brilliant treble sound. While that might suit much contemporary music, works of the classic, Romantic period of the 19th century require just the opposite--a blending of the notes and the addition of a much-needed bass sound, which provides the warmth and sense of harmony so crucial to music. Unfortunately Avery Fisher, which was redone several times, still needs improvement. There is talk now of yet another renovation.

The greatest concert halls we have--Symphony Hall in Boston, Carnegie Hall in New York and the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, to name a few--combine clarity and brilliance without sacrificing warmth. It is interesting that all were built before 1901, prior to the availability of scientific instruments. Apparently, the human ear was (and for me still is) the best instrument of all.

Let me tell you just a few of my own adventures with music's most unpredictable partner--acoustics:

• In 1957, at a recording session at Orchestra Hall in Chicago, with Fritz Reiner conducting the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, I wasn't surprised when I did not hear enough piano sound during a brief rehearsal. Normally, when I had experienced that at rehearsals for concerts there, I was not worried, since I knew that I would have my "real" piano back with a filled auditorium. But in a recording session there is no public to change the acoustics--so I quickly had to find a way to get the sound I needed.

I had seen some sheets of plywood backstage and, knowing that wood was the best reflector of sound, I asked the stagehand to bring me some. One piece was close to perfect--it was about 15 inches wide (roughly the distance between the keyboard and the lid, an area which normally doesn't need any sound reflector). When leaned against the left side of the piano near the keyboard, it rose a foot above the instrument. I sat down and played a few passages--it worked! It gave me the sound I needed. I have never forgotten that piece of plywood. It should have gotten credit on the recording!

• When I was 10 years old, I played on an important radio program called "The Magic Key." A celebrated soprano named Grace Moore was on the same program. During rehearsal, I saw her putting a cupped hand behind her ear. I remember thinking, "Wow, what a strange lady--what's she doing?" Later I realized that she did this to amplify the sound of her voice, using her hand as a reflector. Not only can you hear your own voice better but the voices of others as well. Try this at a concert and you'll have your own personal amplifier.

• Vladimir Horowitz, the great pianist with whom I studied, told me how mystified he was when Maurice Ravel asked him to play a new piece, "Jeux d'Eau" ("The Fountain"), without using any pedals. Fortunately, it went unheeded; otherwise we would have heard a lot of "dry fountains"!

Some 30 years later when visiting Ravel's home outside Paris, I had the opportunity to play his piano, and after only a few moments understood the puzzling "no pedal" request. Composers usually write for the conditions at hand. In his case, the piano was a Bechstein grand, and the room in which he wrote was small--about 12 by 24 feet. The sound was so excessively sonorous that no pedal was needed and, indeed, would have been detrimental. So the acoustics in Ravel's room were the culprit responsible for the "dry fountain."

• In New York in the summer of 1957, I recorded Moussorgsky's "Pictures at an Exhibition," his major work for piano. Several days after finishing, I went to the studio to listen to the different takes. I happened to choose the ones for the final recording on a Friday. Returning to the studio on Monday I was shocked at what I heard. Everything sounded lifeless and heavy--too slow. I know we hear things differently on different days, but this was too much.

I asked the crew if they had heard the difference. To my relief, they had. They were as perplexed as I until one of the engineers cried out, "I know what the problem is--the air conditioner was turned off over the weekend and the speakers have been badly affected by the room's heat and humidity." There was no point in listening any further until the air conditioner could dry everything out. We enjoyed a purposefully long lunch before returning to the studio and to the tapes. As if by magic, the Friday performances were back! Shortly afterward, I was told that the air conditioners would have no more weekends off.

These are but a few examples of how capricious acoustics can be. And when we realize that even fur coats can affect the sound in a hall, you can see just how capricious.

So the next time you complain about the sound in a concert hall, pity the poor performers. Before a recital we must position the piano based on the acoustics of an empty hall, not a filled one. Hopefully, we make the right choice--no changing of seats for us!

Mr. Janis, a world-renowned pianist, has written the music for a coming documentary on the friendship between Gary Cooper and Ernest Hemingway. He is currently working on completing his autobiography.

[tysontom]

>1. Completely by-pass the tweeter pot

I think this is bad advice. This will upset the spectral balance of the speaker and make it sound overly bright under certain circumstances.

>2. Cut the lead to the mid-pot wiper and solder to the top of the pot

I think this is bad advice as well. Not all rooms are the same, and at least the level controls give some flexibility in adjusting the balance of the midrange and tweeter for different acoustical environments. With the level controls bypassed, even a "laid-back" sounding AR-3 will sound very bright and sometimes even harsh in a live, unpadded listening environment.

>Believe it or not, but these changes get you closer to a flat

>frequency response. Most likely to achieve a totally flat

>response, you'll still need a "slight" treble

>boost.

>

The AR-3 was designed for flat *power* response, not necessarily flat energy response. It is difficult to achieve both. The AR-3 high-frequency drivers have extremely uniform response, taken individually, but the system has a somewhat downward-sloping, on-axis system anechoic response. This is not necessarily bad since the speaker has such wide dispersion, and since this is basically what one hears in a concert hall when listening to live music. You don't hear flat on-axis response in a concert hall, you hear reflected energy that is downward-sloping as you go up in frequency; and since the purpose of high fidelity is to replicate the listening experience (i.e., take you back to the concert hall) and not bring the musicians into your living room, the outstanding power response -- eveb with the reticent on-axis high-frequency response of the AR-3 -- helps with this illusion. Bypassing the controls completely will upset the spectral balance of the speaker. If you are going to do that, and insist on flat energy response, go ahead and replace both dome drivers with conventional cone drivers.

>Peter, even if you spend an enormous amount of time cleaning

>and plating the pot wipers, once those dissimilar metals are

>back in the presence of current and heat, … they’ll just start

>corroding all over again.

>

This doesn't ring true either. Once the controls are properly cleaned and lubricated with WD-40 or some other excellent dielectric lubricants, they will last many years before requiring re-work. The exception would be if the speakers are played at high output levels, at which time the drivers are probably in danger anyway.

>Regards,

>Jerry

>

>PS: Another thing that really helps with these "power

>hungry" vintage speakers is to passively bi-amp. What

>this does is off load the heavy current demand caused by the

>woofers from the amp powering those very sensitive drivers

>(mid & tweeter).

>

As we gave said previously, this is a solution for which there is no problem. Simply supply adequate power to begin with and you will not have any troubles with the AR-3. Bi-amping a single-ground speaker is convoluted and tricky, and amplifiers might become unstable driving this type configuration.

--Tom Tyson

[soundminded]

>The AR-3 was designed for flat *power* response, not

>necessarily flat energy response. It is difficult to achieve

>both.

Tom, What is the difference?

[soundminded]

If you listen to this lecture by one of the world's greatest acousticians, Leo Beranek, you will learn more about acoustics, concert halls, and how they affect music in a little over an hour than if you read every consumer audio magazine ever published.

http://www.me.gatech.edu/me/publicat/programs/01hwg.htm

Unfortunately, the slides are too washed out for viewing in the video presentation.

[tysontom]

>>The AR-3 was designed for flat *power* response, not

>>necessarily flat energy response. It is difficult to

>achieve

>>both.

>

>Tom, What is the difference?

>

The loosely termed "power" response is meant in this context to represent the reverberant-field spectral balance, determined by the acoustic power frequency response of a loudspeaker system into anechoic space. This is the integrated-output response from the speaker at all angles. In a listening environment, it would be the sum of output at all angles. Energy response is meant to represent the output from the speaker or driver itself, at various specific angles, measured also in echo-free environment or with computer programs.

A speaker with very good "power" response will sound natural and spacious back in the reverberant field. A speaker with flat on-axis response, but poor off-axis response, will sound dull and two-dimensional well back in the reverberant field, since most of what is heard in the far field is reflected energy. This is the reason off-axis response is so critically important, in my opinion, but many (if not most contemporary) loudspeaker designers disagree with this assertion. This is also the reason that most listeners -- back in the reverberant field -- cannot detect diffraction effects from cabinet molding, or interference effects from multiple drivers, since these artifacts are a result of microphone location and first-arrival conditions. These effects are swamped back in the reverberant field. Aberrations in energy response, however, such a true energy peaks or dips, are very audible anywhere, since the off-angle output is affected as well.

Since the measurement in an anechoic chamber of these many angles was very tedious, this measurement was previously done (accurately) with a calibrated semi-reverberant chamber. High-power computer modeling now does this work without the use of such chamber, though not more accurately.

--Tom Tyson (03Feb07)

[onplane]

>

>>Peter, even if you spend an enormous amount of time

>cleaning

>>and plating the pot wipers, once those dissimilar metals

>are

>>back in the presence of current and heat, … they’ll just

>start

>>corroding all over again.

>>

>

>This doesn't ring true either. Once the controls are properly

>cleaned and lubricated with WD-40 or some other excellent

>dielectric lubricants, they will last many years before

>requiring re-work. The exception would be if the speakers are

>played at high output levels, at which time the drivers are

>probably in danger anyway.

>

>

Tom, I guess we'll never agree about the "best way" to use AR's TODAY.

In all of your comments, you neglected to mention that AR indicated back in 1968 that to achieve "uniform energy output at ALL audible frequencies" BOTH level controls should be turned all the way up PLUS a slight treble boost. (see attached)

They further did NOT recommend this setting back in 1968 because the record companies at that time were artificially emphasizing high frequencies to compensate for the poor playback devices in the mass market. Back then the mass market was loaded with Mickey Mouse record players on the one hand and the big consoles with ceramic phono cartridges on the other.

Regardless of the why’s of 40 years ago, today with modern digital recording and playback there is no need to emphasize anything and it’s no longer a dominant trend. So to leave your speakers at the “dot” with digital playback devices WILL make your AR-3a’s sound somewhat “dull”.

Soldering the mid pot wiper to the top of the pot gets you closer to a flat response with modern media and playback.

As for by-passing the treble pot, this gains on the average 1db in the tweeter over a tweeter with the pot at max. See calculations below which show an average gain in tweeter current of 11%. Some would say this constitutes a “slight treble boost”. (BTW Chuck McShane was the first to recommend this, I believe.)

Next, my statement below “rings true” all day long…

“Peter, even if you spend an enormous amount of time cleaning and plating the pot wipers, once those dissimilar metals are back in the presence of current and heat, … they’ll just start corroding all over again.”

Tom, don’t believe me. Check with any local boater as we struggle with this problem continually …

Dissimilar metals + current + heat => Corrosion

Now, it’s true that the process is slow and the degradation caused by the increased resistance doesn’t appear over night. Nevertheless, the speakers with pots are slowly degrading, because corrosion creates resistance where NONE was ever intended.

Lastly, passive bi-amping does make a huge difference on these vintage speakers that draw significant current. Just look at the impedance chart for the woofer. It shows that an amp powering just the woofer sees a far "better behaved" impedance than an amp powering a complete AR-3a system.

Again, Tom, I guess we’ll never agree, but I have tried it both ways. My challenge to you is to try the mods with digital playback devices and see for yourself.

Regards,

Jerry

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/1929.jpg

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/1930.jpg

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/1931.jpg

[kkantor]

As you can see, there are many here more qualified to comment on the 3's than I am! I'm not a really a repair/restore guru.

Some recent comments related to "classical music and ken" are conflating four completely different subjects. When I answer one, another is invoked. Please make it clear which of the following subjects you wish me address:

1- Do I personally enjoy classical music?

2- Do I think classical music has artistic merit?

3- Do I believe that classical music has a viable niche, profitable or otherwise, in the modern musical landscape.

4- Do I think that classical music has a preferred place in the process of loudspeaker design.

I have clear opinions, and am happy to discuss any of these subjects. But, its frustrating to try and maintain a logical discussion when the focus keeps changing from post to post to suit the poster's agenda.

Actually, discussions here have inspired me to (hypothetically) write a short essay on the issue of "classical music" in specific, and high fidelity "references" in general. It is not a simple subject that is amenable to progress via quick email comments. I've been obsessed with the issue for many years, and would rather present my case more substantially for debate.

I sat, literally, next to the AR copywriters as they brainstormed the original promotional pitch on "truth in listening." Of course, I am very familiar with the arguments about how one needs a reference to design speakers, how live music is a stake in the ground for accuracy, etc. As I said, it is not as simple subject as advertising would have you believe, and I encourage you to approach it with whatever balance of cynicism and an open mind you can muster.

I am not a subjectivist about audio. However, after many years of typical logical positivism, I have come to a place where I believe that such dogma is hindering meaningful progress in audio system accuracy. To move beyond what we experience now demands new thinking about how to incorporate the characteristics of the human perceptual system into notions of loudspeaker accuracy, and also requires the consideration of musical context into the reproduction ideal. This does not require either opinion or subjectivism. But, it does require thinking that is based on 4-terminal I/O transfer functions, including the concept of "frequency response" as it is currently used.

-k

http://kkantor.spaces.live.com

[kkantor]

Ooops! I left out an important word in my last reply! Freudian Slip.

"But, it does require thinking that is NOT based on 4-terminal I/O transfer functions, including the concept of "frequency response" as it is currently used."

-k

kkantor.spaces.live.com

[soundminded]

>Some recent comments related to "classical music and

>ken" are conflating four completely different subjects.

>When I answer one, another is invoked. Please make it clear

>which of the following subjects you wish me address:

There seem to be different subjects coming from different people, each with their own point of view. I'll try to make mine as succinct as possible which may be different from what others have in mind.

1. Is the goal of high fidelity sound reproduction in the home the exact replication of the aural experience of hearing a live performance of classical music as it would be heard in the venue it is normally performed in even including soloists and small ensembles such as string quartets which might perform in one's home?

2. Has technology even at its best so far failed so miserably to achieve this goal that it not only badly distorts the sound of classical music but in doing so, disotorts the music itself in ways which defeat not only much of the enjoyment of music but the intent of the people who created it, namely the composers, the performers, and even the people who created the musical instruments themselves?

You already know my answers to both questions.

>But, it

>does require thinking that is NOT based on 4-terminal I/O transfer

>functions, including the concept of "frequency

>response" as it is currently used.

Well at least that is a starting point we can agree on.

BTW, as an aside, because many musicians (at least the ones I've met) seem to have a "mind's ear" which hears beyond the technology, they may not be the best ones to ask for an opinion in this matter. They also do not normally sit in the audience and therefore don't hear what the audience hears. I hope you will take the opportunity to listen to Leo Beranek's lecture I supplied a link to. If you are interested in the sound of classical music, I think you will find it most interesting.

[Guest peterh]

Didn't mean to take you for a "repair store guru" (-; No offense intended.

What I was addressing was the question whether acoustic music is no longer important to audio consumers. If it is still important to consumers and if (some) designers want to serve those consumers then they will want their products to reproduce it well, whatever that may come to. You made some comments that sounded to me like "hardly anybody cares much about classical music these days." My point was that it's not as dead as you seem to think; secondly, that the more important question for designers is not how many people are into classical music and how important they are they to sales but how many people are into acoustic music, and how important they are they to sales.

But I do reserve the right to connect this question to the one that comes up if it is granted that designers should care about reproducing acoustic music: do you want to use the live sound of acoustic instruments as a reference? You can't raise that issue in relation to highly processed recordings of pop music. Classical musicians do take the hall into consideration - viewing it as an instrument, in effect - and so with classical recording it is particularly appropriate to try and reproduce a live sound, including the hall ambience. For that purpose the Bose approach has the drawback that you get the reflections and then the reflections of the reflections. You get this effect with a front-firing speaker too, but the Bose design accentuates it. On the other hand, listeners may be indifferent to this drawback or positively like the effect. It's not for me to tell them what to like.

Best wishes,

PH

[onplane]

>soundminded wrote:

>

>1. Is the goal of high fidelity sound reproduction in the home

>the exact replication of the aural experience of hearing a

>live performance of classical music as it would be heard in

>the venue it is normally performed in even including soloists

>and small ensembles such as string quartets which might

>perform in one's home?

>

>Peter wrote:

>

>do you want to use the live sound of acoustic instruments as a

>reference? ... and so with classical recording it is particularly

>appropriate to try and reproduce a live sound, including the hall

>ambience.

My sense is Ken is mostly likely correct in that any speaker manufacturer that focuses on a particular genre of music is probably doomed. Now, the one exception may be Rock, where the potential customer base is … enormous.

As for soundminded’s question on the “goal of high fidelity sound reproduction in the home”, I would offer it is:

“To create the ILLUSION that the musicians are PRESENT and performing for us.”

This goal is clearly much broader and will probably satisfy all genres.

Peter’s notion to use the “sound of acoustic instruments as a reference” I think is a good one! When we think about the number of genres where acoustic instruments dominate, it’s simply huge (Folk, Classical, Country, Blue Grass, and most importantly my favorite … JAZZ!).

I want to be clear, however, to me acoustic instruments means more than just string instruments. To me it’s woodwinds (Benny Goodman, Buddy DeFranco, John Coltrane, Stan Getz, Charlie Parker, etc), percussion (Milt Jackson, Lionel Hampton, etc), brass (Miles Davis, Harry James, JJ Johnson, etc.) and strings (Stéphane Grappelli).

Just as an aside, I’ve been communicating with a musician that uses AR’s and his comment is that “these speakers are fantastic when it comes to timbral accuracy … the sax is truly remarkable in how real it sounds.” He goes on to say, “they are one of the best speakers that I have ever heard that reproduces the correct timber of sound for the instruments, especially wood winds and flutes. Also the strings sound wonderful in the middle to lower registers but I have never heard any speaker that gets the sound of a violin (which I play) correct in the top octaves. … Even when I have been in a symphony orchestra and sixteen first violins are playing at one time, the sound is not bright. I really do believe that it is one instrument that is so difficult or impossible for a microphone to pick up correctly. I do not know why, but it sure does appear that way.”

Now, I’ll promote “my” genre. I listen to music of all kinds, but invariably I end up listening to jazz for hours on end. My impression is the recordings made by jazz musicians are among the very best. Jazz musicians have to tell THEIR story strictly with their instruments. Consequently, their audience must be able to hear CLEARLY … what each musician is doing. Then, when the speakers can faithfully reproduce the sound of these “acoustic instruments”, the effect is extremely pleasing.

In closing, I guess Carl is really correct when he reminds us ...

"It's all about the music."

Regards,

Jerry

[dynaco_dan]

Hi Jerry;

Is it possible for you to ask the owner which AR speakers he has such a fond regard for.

[onplane]

>Hi Jerry;

>

>Is it possible for you to ask the owner which AR speakers he

>has such a fond regard for.

Hi, Vern!!

Yes, I know what speakers he has. He has two sets of AR-3's ... NOT 3a's, but 3's!

Actually, he is the 2nd individual to recently rave about AR-3's once they "moded" the pots.

Regards,

Jerry

[dynaco_dan]

Hi again;

Thank you for replying.

This reaffirms Joe's feeling of AR-3's.

Maybe not the best speaker ever made but they certainly have their supporters and close enough for me.

Like every other product that was manufactured, the bad comments always come out during production or as soon as the new replacement model is introduced.

I am certain several members have reviews of the AR-3A and the negative comments of the AR-3 after it was basicly superceded but still manufactured for a period of time following.

The fact that the AR-3 was not dropped immediately tells us that there was still enough demand to continue production.

Something special I feel.

Perhaps Tom or others may comment on why the AR-3 was not dropped with the introduction of the AR-3A.

If I remember correctly mid drivers needed to be subbed with an AR-3A modified mid driver when parts were no longer available at a later date.

The differences between the AR-3 and AR-3A tweeter was greater dispersion and greater powerhandling for sure but there may be other factors I am not aware of.

[Guest Bret]

Though this discussion may give rise to many points-of-view about the proper use of a loudspeaker, the proper role of the speaker is to play exactly whatever signal it is fed. Or is it?

In order for hi-fi to *ever* meet the goal of being able to reproduce an event so that you cannot tell whether it is “live, or Memorex,” some standards must be accepted and agreed-to. I am incapable of defining the parameters, so I won’t try.

We know that frequency response of the system is important, but I wonder if we don’t over-emphasize this. We know that dispersion is important, but aren’t we merely talking about our preference (or our systems’ environments) if we don’t know what dispersion is correct?

In other words, isn’t our desire nothing more than a fantasy until there are standards? I believe we are salivating over a fictional outcome that would take an incredible re-thinking by the recording industry. Our current systems would become as obsolete for hi-fidelity listening under those circumstances as a crystal A.M. radio is today.

The industry is not going to move in this direction on the recording, mixing, and mastering processes. Well, not in my lifetime.

Even if the recording industry decided on very exact standards, and even if the audio community adopted those for playback in every piece of equipment they built, we **still** have not solved the problem. There would have to be a standard “room” into which the system played with standards of reflectivity and absorption and size and position.

Not once, not ever, no way, no how, have I ever been fooled by any recording into believing that a live acoustic instrument was in the room with me. Never. The closest experience I have had is being in *another* room and asking a third party if there was someone playing in the next room or if that was a recording.

It “feels right” to make an intuitive jump and contend that the room’s effect on playback *must* be removed before we will ever achieve our goal of “lifelike” sound. We can get lifelike sound in the *next* room, but not in the room where the equipment is.

If you think about it, that’s what all these audiophiles’ equipment and listening chairs are doing out in the middle of the floor of large rooms. They are trying to get rid of unwanted room effects by moving everything away from reflective surfaces. That’s no solution. It’s miserably inadequate at its best and wives everywhere will see to it that it never becomes popular. It is likewise unreasonable to think every home will include an anechoic chamber.

Until the day that someone designs and builds a system which will magically control the listening environment actively, there is no reason for the recording industry to try to conform to exacting standards, and we will never approach true fidelity - the faithful reproduction of a prior event.

Is it reasonable to even try given that the majority of music today is not recorded on acoustic instruments? I say, “Yes, there is a lot of reason to do it.” I could really enjoy Peter Gabriel and Pink Floyd and ELO and even Walter Carlos or Sarah Brightman on a system capable of fooling me into thinking I was in a space of the engineer’s choosing even if that space never really existed - like reading about “Middle Earth” or “Yoknapatawpha County” it is entirely okay with me if the setting is created specifically for my consumption.

In short, we cannot have the outcome the most critical of us desire regardless of flat energy or flat power or flat on-and-off axis frequency response. We will never successfully fool our brains until we remove “hints” during playback that we are in our space, not the performer’s. When we find that magic, closing our eyes will be disorienting and we will “feel” as if we are elsewhere.

[soundminded]

Bret, I think you have made several important points. This discussion seems to have bifurcated into two separate discussions, one about the recording and playback of music, and the other about AR3 and AR3a loudspeakers. I'm sympathetic to Ken's dilemma of trying to address different issues in the same thread. For me, this discussion is about what Ken intended it to be as I see it, his philosophy of what electronic sound reproducing systems are about.

>Though this discussion may give rise to many points-of-view

>about the proper use of a loudspeaker, the proper role of the

>speaker is to play exactly whatever signal it is fed. Or is

>it?

Very good point. Viewing each individual component of a sound system independently is a mistake many, maybe most people make. The goal is to engineer a sound system which fulfills a purpose. Seeing any one component in isolation is a mistake. It's like looking only at a transmission and trying to discuss a car.

>

>In order for hi-fi to *ever* meet the goal of being able to

>reproduce an event so that you cannot tell whether it is

>“live, or Memorex,” some standards must be accepted and

>agreed-to. I am incapable of defining the parameters, so I

>won’t try.

We know that there is no standard way to make a recording. There are many variables, among them the frequency balance built into the recording. Therefore sound systms which cannot compensate for these variables to minimize their consequent differences are of limited value no matter what their other attributes. If they worked perfectly on some recordings, they would fail badly on many others. Sadly, this is now not just the norm but practically the universal rule of high end audio systems.

>

>We know that frequency response of the system is important,

>but I wonder if we don’t over-emphasize this. We know that

>dispersion is important, but aren’t we merely talking about

>our preference (or our systems’ environments) if we don’t know

>what dispersion is correct?

>

>In other words, isn’t our desire nothing more than a fantasy

>until there are standards? I believe we are salivating over

>a fictional outcome that would take an incredible re-thinking

>by the recording industry. Our current systems would become as

>obsolete for hi-fidelity listening under those circumstances

>as a crystal A.M. radio is today.

The best we can hope for with already existing recordings and those likely to be made in the forseeable future is to devise sound systems which can accomodate their differences. As for the fantasy, yes there is still a lot of basic work to be done before an understanding is reached where we see why what we have is not adequate to even rarely reproduce acoustic music accurately. I don't think there is much effort being made in that regard.

>

>The industry is not going to move in this direction on the

>recording, mixing, and mastering processes. Well, not in my

>lifetime.

Strange things do happen but I wouldn't hold my breath.

>Even if the recording industry decided on very exact

>standards, and even if the audio community adopted those for

>playback in every piece of equipment they built, we **still**

>have not solved the problem. There would have to be a

>standard “room” into which the system played with standards of

>reflectivity and absorption and size and position.

Either that or the equipment would have to be engineered to compensate for differences in rooms. Not much real effort has gone into that. Tweeter and midrange level controls are not much effective and have their drawbacks.

>

>Not once, not ever, no way, no how, have I ever been fooled by

>any recording into believing that a live acoustic instrument

>was in the room with me. Never. The closest experience I

>have had is being in *another* room and asking a third party

>if there was someone playing in the next room or if that was a

>recording.

Before you can create an illusion, like a magician you have to understand the exact nature of what you are trying to get people to believe they are experiencing. Audio engineers haven't done that. They have naively applied some of their science while ignoring much of what they should know. They are good at circuit theory but their obvious lack of knowledge of acoustical fields, the essence of what the illusion is about is obvious. This is both strange and sad because they above all others disciplined in their education learn the most about the related science of electrical fields which should prepare them to study and understand acoustical fields. This IMO is where their failure is worst.

>

>It “feels right” to make an intuitive jump and contend that

>the room’s effect on playback *must* be removed before we will

>ever achieve our goal of “lifelike” sound. We can get

>lifelike sound in the *next* room, but not in the room where

>the equipment is.

>

>If you think about it, that’s what all these audiophiles’

>equipment and listening chairs are doing out in the middle of

>the floor of large rooms. They are trying to get rid of

>unwanted room effects by moving everything away from

>reflective surfaces. That’s no solution. It’s miserably

>inadequate at its best and wives everywhere will see to it

>that it never becomes popular. It is likewise unreasonable to

>think every home will include an anechoic chamber.

>

Miserably inadequate is exactly the term I would agree with because it demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of what constitutes the illusion and how to create it. It doesn't work.

>Until the day that someone designs and builds a system which

>will magically control the listening environment actively,

>there is no reason for the recording industry to try to

>conform to exacting standards, and we will never approach true

>fidelity - the faithful reproduction of a prior event.

>

>Is it reasonable to even try given that the majority of music

>today is not recorded on acoustic instruments? I say, “Yes,

>there is a lot of reason to do it.” I could really enjoy

>Peter Gabriel and Pink Floyd and ELO and even Walter Carlos or

>Sarah Brightman on a system capable of fooling me into

>thinking I was in a space of the engineer’s choosing even if

>that space never really existed - like reading about “Middle

>Earth” or “Yoknapatawpha County” it is entirely okay with me

>if the setting is created specifically for my consumption.

>

>In short, we cannot have the outcome the most critical of us

>desire regardless of flat energy or flat power or flat

>on-and-off axis frequency response. We will never

>successfully fool our brains until we remove “hints” during

>playback that we are in our space, not the performer’s. When

>we find that magic, closing our eyes will be disorienting and

>we will “feel” as if we are elsewhere.

About 40 or 45 years ago, Acoustic Research demonstrated that under highly contrived and controlled conditions, it could reproduce the sound of one or a few instruments convincingly to many people in an audience in a large room. That's as far as the science ever got and despite all the technical advances in the intervening years, I don't think it has gotten any further. In fact it may be sad but true that even that accomplishment of 40 years ago is now beyond most practicioners of the art. Worse yet is the delusion that the goal is so close to being achieved, all we have to do is keep at the same thing we've been doing all these years only slightly better. The real truth IMO is that the road the industry has taken us on is at a dead end and going nowhere fast.

[joelongwood]

"Worse yet is the delusion that the goal is so close to being achieved, all we have to do is keep at the same thing we've been doing all these years only slightly better. The real truth IMO is that the road the industry has taken us on is at a dead end and going nowhere fast."

I would have to agree with you on that point, soundminded. Personally, I gave up a long time ago attempting to create the illusion of live music in my living room. The only time it worked (somewhat) was back in the 60's.......with the assistance of various organic substances.

All one has to do is venture into a local Best Buy to see (hear) what passes for hi-fidelity today........not much more than 80 hz humps and screeching top ends. Or stroll into a high end audio/video salon and get ready to plunk down a half year's salary, or more if you want some cables and interconnects, for the privilege of bringing home the industry's latest attempts at recreating live music in the home. And it still isn't going to work.

I've come to the realization that all I want out of my system is for it to sound "good" to my ears. My "good" means nice, deep bass, coupled with detailed, yet smooth mids and a non-glaring high end. That's why I've finally, after many years of searching, come home to AR.

[kkantor]

Sheesh, are we all getting paid by the word? This thread is on the road to hell already, making it pretty difficult build a focused, rational, step-by-step case. I recuse, and will publish the essay I am working on on my site when it is done. Then it can be discussed here.

Bret, the KEY point of all this dicussion is that your very first sentence is non-operative. It's not that the engineering doesn't exist to do it, or that it is incorrect to do. More deeply, there is simply no philosophical way to even define a "speaker reproducing an input signal," in a very fundamental way. It's like trying to come up with the equation for a square circle. You can say the words, but the object itself is without meaning. I'm not going to reply here, now. I encourage people to thing about this, not post about it, for a few days anyway.

-k

kkantor.spaces.live.com

PS- I think it is promotes the best communication when there is only one point made per post. Keeping each post below 100 or 150 words is also generally considered a good idea.

[kkantor]

Repair and Restore, not Repair Store!

I love repair stores, when I can find them any more. But not offense taken. I was really just trying to emphasize the quality of info available here from others concerning restoration and repair.

-k

kkantor.spaces.live.com

[kkantor]

Both this post and your previous one on Beranek brought up a vivid memory: Back when I lived in Boston, Tom Horrall (now TD at Acentech), invited me over to spend the afternoon listening to BBN's recently completed 16-ch discrete Ambisonics system.

It remains to this day one of the 2 or 3 best sound reproduction experiences I have had. One of the very few that, with my head carefully positioned (within a few mm), could truely transport me to an indistinguishable sonic recreation.

Of course, if I opened my eyes, it looked like I was in an operating theater, which sort-of broke the spell...

If I recall, all the speakers were AR18's, but maybe not.

-k

kkantor.spaces.live.com

[Steve F]

I think--not absolutely certain, but pretty sure--that they were two AR-3a's and 16 AR-4x's. At least that was a demo that I heard in the early-mid '70's at AR.

Remains the most convincing demo at re-creating the live performance/hall acoustics that I've ever heard.

As you said--as long as my eyes remained closed!

Steve F.

[soundminded]

>I think--not absolutely certain, but pretty sure--that they

>were two AR-3a's and 16 AR-4x's. At least that was a demo that

>I heard in the early-mid '70's at AR.

>

>Remains the most convincing demo at re-creating the live

>performance/hall acoustics that I've ever heard.

>

>As you said--as long as my eyes remained closed!

>

>Steve F.

My own reference system incorporates a pair of "enhanced" AR9s and 16 RS Minimus 7 speakers. They are driven by signals which process according to algorithms I developed myself, patented, and which I contend were infringed on by Yamaha. Listening position is not critical. All that is required for best listening is to be in the back half to two thirds of a 4000 cubic foot room and more than 2 to 3 feet from any speaker. Since they are on the floor, this is not generally a problem. The algorithms are based on an acoustic energy transfer function I developed through mathematical modeling which describes the time, spectral transfer, and vector relationships between direct and reverberant sound fields in concert halls. When properly adjusted, it is very effective. Each recording needs separate adjustment according to how it was recorded and the most suitable acoustics for the type of music.

[kkantor]

Steve,

The BBN system was different from the one at AR. The AR system was delay-based. The BBN was an early attempt at what we now like to call "wave field synthesis" or trans-auralization. The BBN/Ambisonic system used proprietary micing, and could record almost anything, including outdoor sounds. The AR system was restricted to recreating performance spaces.

I've heard many encoded Ambisonic systems since then, but nothing that does what the discrete system did for me.

-k

kkantor.spaces.live.com