KLH Nine's offered

[Andy]

These were not put in the vintage electronics catagory...see ebay no. 120111203755. Looks to be a nice pair. I think anytime this model goes for less then $1000, it's a good buy. Some day I want to hear this legendary model in person. Anyone in the midwest could get a jump on overall price by picking them up.

Andy

[Guest Clem]

If you're in NYC, you're welcome to listen to a pair that's not

in mint condition.

[boreas]

>These were not put in the vintage electronics catagory...see

>ebay no. 120111203755. Looks to be a nice pair. I think

>anytime this model goes for less then $1000, it's a good buy.

>Some day I want to hear this legendary model in person. Anyone

>in the midwest could get a jump on overall price by picking

>them up.

The sale you refer to is, of course, over. It ended in April with a sale price of $841.00. Meanwhile, another pair was offered on eBay earlier this month. They were described as "IN ORIGINAL MINT CONDITION NEVER ABUSED" but attracted zero bids. Go figure!

jb

[dynaco_dan]

>>These were not put in the vintage electronics

>catagory...see

>>ebay no. 120111203755. Looks to be a nice pair. I think

>>anytime this model goes for less then $1000, it's a good

>buy.

>>Some day I want to hear this legendary model in person.

>Anyone

>>in the midwest could get a jump on overall price by

>picking

>>them up.

>

>The sale you refer to is, of course, over. It ended in April

>with a sale price of $841.00. Meanwhile, another pair was

>offered on eBay earlier this month. They were described as

>"IN ORIGINAL MINT CONDITION NEVER ABUSED" but

>attracted zero bids. Go figure!

>

>jb

Hi there;

The pair that just went un-sold are like an unpolished gem.

The electrostatic replacement panels are no longer available.

The power supply most certainly will need a tuneup, due to deterioration of components.

Because of their size, shipping would most likely result in un-repairable damage, unless very heavily and very well crated.

Last but not least, WAF, they are about the size of a room door, each panel, free standing.

For someone living near the seller, a good investment nevertheless.

As my one only demo experience was about 30 plus years ago, I still remember I was very impressed with the 4 panels, not just the two.

J Gordon Holt had tested and liked them as I remember, my having read his review, prior to the demo.

At the demo there was a baby grand piano in the same room.

Some classical piano pieces were played and the seller tried playing along with some of it, unsuccessfully, of course.

If I remember correctly, a Dynaco PAS tube pre-amp was used along with Dynaco Mark 3's or Stereo 70, totally inadequate for the 4 panels.

The sound source I forgot, records maybe.

I remember thinking close but no apples, in reproducing the piano music, compared to the recorded piano, just didn't have the aliveness or clarity.

Certainly another session with perhaps, Crown or equal would have been a different story.

One certainly needs the very finest in equipment or near enough, for the speakers to perform at their very best.

They were not perfect, real close, but what is.

Now, if someone has a pair or two they do not want, I will always welcome them in my crowded home.

[dynaco_dan]

Hi again;

After reading a number of write-ups by members over the years.

I believe that Soundminded is the best qualified here to write on hearing piano music live, just to name one instrument he has been exposed to, versus recorded.

I used to relate to looking outdoors through a glass window.

Layered glass sheets, perhaps 10.

Remove one or more and the view is slightly clearer or less distorted but there is still 8 or 9 sheets left to look through.

[soundminded]

>Hi again;

>

>After reading a number of write-ups by members over the

>years.

>

>I believe that Soundminded is the best qualified here to write

>on hearing piano music live, just to name one instrument he

>has been exposed to, versus recorded.

>

>I used to relate to looking outdoors through a glass window.

>

>Layered glass sheets, perhaps 10.

>

>Remove one or more and the view is slightly clearer or less

>distorted but there is still 8 or 9 sheets left to look

>through.

Thanks for the vote of confidence Dan. This is my third try. First time I started writing a book, second time my computer froze. If I can't post this time, the fates are agin' it.

I'll try to be brief. Having listented to and banged out tunes on countless pianos over my lifetime (I'm a truely awful pianist, not having practiced in 40 years may partly explain why) and having thought about how pianos make and propagate sound and how speakers make and propagate sound, there are many complex reason why it is nearly impossible for any commercially made speaker I've ever seen to sound just like any real piano (playing in the same room as you are in. The problem of reproducing the sound as it would be heard in a recital hall or concert hall is orders of magnitude harder.) The skill that has been brought to bear to solve this problem has IMO been entirely inadequate. This is why I have re-engineered all of my own speakers including my AR9s. I can get a lot closer, not exact but a lot closer than I'm accostomed to hearing from other speakers. I can match the timbre of some recorded Steinway pianos to my own...but the spatial radiating pattern is still sufficiently different that there is no problem making an audible distinction. BTW, most loudspeaker systems do not have the capability to accurately reproduce bass to get the lowest octave on the piano right, AR3 etc and original Bose 901 being among the exceptions. And most loudspeakers do not get their highest octave right either, producing a focused shrill sound for the higher harmonics instead of the entirely reflected and diffusely arriving sound of a real piano. Add to this the variables in recording techniques and the inability of most sound systems to compensate for them and you have a prescription for them not sounding like the real thing every single time. BTW, if I had to choose one commercially built speaker that could come closest to having a chance to get it right, I'd pick LST (which I don't own.)

[tysontom]

>

>I'll try to be brief. Having listented to and banged out

>tunes on countless pianos over my lifetime (I'm a truely awful

>pianist, not having practiced in 40 years may partly explain

>why) and having thought about how pianos make and propagate

>sound and how speakers make and propagate sound, there are

>many complex reason why it is nearly impossible for any

>commercially made speaker I've ever seen to sound just like

>any real piano (playing in the same room as you are in. The

>problem of reproducing the sound as it would be heard in a

>recital hall or concert hall is orders of magnitude harder.)

>The skill that has been brought to bear to solve this problem

>has IMO been entirely inadequate. This is why I have

>re-engineered all of my own speakers including my AR9s. I can

>get a lot closer, not exact but a lot closer than I'm

>accostomed to hearing from other speakers. I can match the

>timbre of some recorded Steinway pianos to my own...but the

>spatial radiating pattern is still sufficiently different that

>there is no problem making an audible distinction. BTW, most

>loudspeaker systems do not have the capability to accurately

>reproduce bass to get the lowest octave on the piano right,

>AR3 etc and original Bose 901 being among the exceptions. And

>most loudspeakers do not get their highest octave right

>either, producing a focused shrill sound for the higher

>harmonics instead of the entirely reflected and diffusely

>arriving sound of a real piano. Add to this the variables in

>recording techniques and the inability of most sound systems

>to compensate for them and you have a prescription for them

>not sounding like the real thing every single time. BTW, if I

>had to choose one commercially built speaker that could come

>closest to having a chance to get it right, I'd pick LST

>(which I don't own.)

These are interesting comments! Back in the early 1960s an amplifier manufacturer (Mattes Electronics) introduced one of the first high-powered solid-state amplifiers, and in order to demonstrate why such power was needed, the company decided to compare the oscilloscope waveforms of a live (Steinway Concert Grand) piano to the output of a low-efficiency, high-quality acoustic-suspension loudspeaker to show that certain music peaks required large amounts of amplifier power into low-sensitivity speakers. The company did not actually mention it by name, but the speaker was the Acoustic Research AR-3, a speaker of about 0.5% electroacoustic efficiency. An article was published in *HiFi Stereo Review* that showed the waveform of the live piano played through a condenser microphone into an oscilloscope compared with the output from the AR-3 played at the same level into that same microphone into the oscilloscope, as well as the waveform output from the amplifier into the terminals of the speaker.

What is noteworthy is the very close objective corollation of the oscilloscope waveforms and the noted subjective similarity by the people present of the piano and the recorded music of the piano through the AR-3s.

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/2785.jpg

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/2786.jpg

--Tom Tyson

[soundminded]

In an anechoic chamber when listening to the AR3s on axis, it could be an audible dead ringer for the Steinway. But in a real room it's an entirely different story. While the AR3 had better high frequency dispersion than other speakers, when compared to the dispersion characteristics of the Steinway at practically every frequency, it isn't even a close comparison, the speaker is far more directional and its directionality increases with increasing frequency. By contrast, the Steinway is much closer to an omnidirectional radiator and its radiating patten is relatively independent of frequency. Due to interaction of the room's acoustics the difference becomes audible, the more live the room, the greater the disparity. Deadening the room's acoustics behind, above, and to the sides of the speaker by applying sound absorbing material to the walls and ceiling and moving the speakers away from the walls reduces the effect of the room's acoustics and decreases the disparity in a side by side comparison. It also detracts from the magnificent sound a Steinway grand piano can produce. The sound of the Piano can be improved and made closer to that of the speaker by propping up its lid and using it as a reflector as is intended. This will make the piano more directional although it still will not be a point source. Even so, the comparison of the AR3s and AR4xs with the upright piano-like 1905 Nickelodeon in the live versus recorded demo was impressive.

[Carlspeak]

After having recently dabbled in waveform analysis for my capacitor study, IMO, upon close examination, the curves you presented are similar. However, I wouldn’t call them close either. If I read your text and the article text correctly, I interpreted the term ‘live’ piano as having to be repeated for each scan? Thus, discrete, repetitive playing of music could not, in itself, be duplicated exactly either (i.e. the pressure of the fingers on the piano keys, the strike of the mallets against the piano strings, etc.). Or, where all three scans somehow made simultaneously? That would be a much better comparative test.

This brings me to discuss the much larger challenge of accurate musical reproductions of both instruments and voice. IMHO the invention of the vibrating transducer, be it a cone, dome or planer loudspeakers, is a marvelous achievement indeed. Particularly since there hasn’t been anything significantly developed to replace it since 1924, when two General Electric researchers, Chester W. Rice and Edward Washburn Kellogg patented the modern, moving coil, direct radiator, loudspeaker, that became the prominent design for all loudspeakers. That’s a pretty long time for someone, somewhere to come up with something, truly significantly better.

Well designed and constructed loudspeakers come very close to duplicating instruments. Close enough to satisfy most lovers of music like myself. On my mid-fi system, a piano does sound like a piano; a guitar does sound like a guitar; a cello does sound like a cello. It’s obvious to me they will never sound the same as those instruments being played before me live at home. How is it possible for a vibrating cone to produce all the same subtle tones as a vibrating gut string of a violin or cello? It simply just can’t happen. On the other hand, it comes darn close and that’s enough to satisfy myself and evidently, many millions of listeners before me.

Also, I think the goal of EXACT duplication of music studio or concert hall realism in our home listening environments is pure folly. Again, modern audio technology has come very close to duplicating the spaciousness of a concert venue via proper choices of microphone (critical step), microphone placement (also critical) and electronic recording and reproducing equipment. Some labels do the recording part very well. Others don’t. Some speakers do the playing job very well. Others don’t. Tweakers have massaged their audio systems to play music to suit their tastes for realism and they should indeed be proud of their accomplishment. But, to disparage the loudspeaker industry for not developing the ultimate reproducer of live music is also unfair. Because……………….

It's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

[tysontom]

>After having recently dabbled in waveform analysis for my

>capacitor study, IMO, upon close examination, the curves you

>presented are similar. However, I wouldn’t call them close

>either. If I read your text and the article text correctly, I

>interpreted the term ‘live’ piano as having to be repeated for

>each scan? Thus, discrete, repetitive playing of music could

>not, in itself, be duplicated exactly either (i.e. the

>pressure of the fingers on the piano keys, the strike of the

>mallets against the piano strings, etc.). Or, where all three

>scans somehow made simultaneously? That would be a much better

>comparative test.

>

Carl,

You certainly make good points. As for the oscilloscope waveform photographs, each is a photo of a specific 20-second slice of music from the piano. The output from the piano was picked up by a Sony or B&K condenser microphone and recorded directly into an Ampex tape recorder. The three oscilloscope waveforms show (1) the output of the piano itself from the recording, (2) the output from the AR-3 playing the exact same section of tape and reproducing the piano at the same acoustic level into the same microphone (whereby some distortion and waveform non-linearity can be attributed to the microphone and the tape playback mechanism, not just the AR-3) and (3), the waveform of that signal at the terminals of the AR-3. The whole purpose of this exercise was *not* to show the accuracy of the speaker, but to show what the speaker demands of the amplifier under live-piano levels, thus the need for 100-watt/channel amplifiers for realistic sound-pressure levels. The accuracy of the AR-3 was incidental to this exercise, and in fact there was *no* specific mention of the speaker or model number. This speaker could have been a KLH Six or a JBL or something, but it happened to be an AR-3.

The purpose of showing those waveform photographs was to demonstrate that a high-quality loudspeaker such as the AR-3 was capable of a reasonable facsimile of the original sound, as picked up by the recording microphone. This illusion was also clearly shown in other live-vs.-recorded demonstrations conducted by AR using that speaker. Of course, it almost goes without saying that *no* loudspeaker ever designed comes remotely close to perfect reproduction -- yet we can only hope to recreate live music as accurately as possible if that is the goal of accurate reproduction. Interestingly, the state-of-the-art in speaker accuracy has advanced at a snail’s pace in the past four decades; and insofar as there have been many notable improvements to loudspeakers over the years, strangely none have been shown to have significantly better *quantified* accuracy in reproducing live-ensemble sound than the AR-3, and no manufacturer in the years since AR’s landmark live-versus-recorded concerts of the early 1960s appears ready to try to duplicate this ultimate subjective test of sonic accuracy. Why is that? With all the improvements, no one has attempted to demonstrate these improvements with regard to improved accuracy which, by the way, is the very purpose of high fidelity.

--Tom Tyson

[soundminded]

>After having recently dabbled in waveform analysis for my

>capacitor study, IMO, upon close examination, the curves you

>presented are similar. However, I wouldn’t call them close

>either. If I read your text and the article text correctly, I

>interpreted the term ‘live’ piano as having to be repeated for

>each scan? Thus, discrete, repetitive playing of music could

>not, in itself, be duplicated exactly either (i.e. the

>pressure of the fingers on the piano keys, the strike of the

>mallets against the piano strings, etc.). Or, where all three

>scans somehow made simultaneously? That would be a much better

>comparative test.

The time based oscilloscope photographs of the sweeep storage scope are the same musical passage, first as picked up live by the microphone as the recording was being made, then as picked up by the same microphone placed near a loudspeaker, and then as a trace of the elecrical input to the loudspeaker. The two to compare when considering the loudspeaker are b and c because this shows the similarity and difference between the electrical input and acoustical output, in other words, its accuracy as a transducer. The difference between A and B shows the errors introduced by the tape recorder and the amplifier combined and is therefore in and of itself worthless since errors cannot be ascribed to one or the other. Despite the superficial similarities, close examination shows that all three are quite different in their details. However, even an expert at reading such sweeps would be hard pressed to say whether or not the discrepencies would result in audible differences and of what degree or of what nature. The scientific value of these photographs is therefore nil even if the advertising value isn't.

>

>This brings me to discuss the much larger challenge of

>accurate musical reproductions of both instruments and voice.

>IMHO the invention of the vibrating transducer, be it a cone,

>dome or planer loudspeakers, is a marvelous achievement

>indeed. Particularly since there hasn’t been anything

>significantly developed to replace it since 1924, when two

>General Electric researchers, Chester W. Rice and Edward

>Washburn Kellogg patented the modern, moving coil, direct

>radiator, loudspeaker, that became the prominent design for

>all loudspeakers. That’s a pretty long time for someone,

>somewhere to come up with something, truly significantly

>better.

>

>Well designed and constructed loudspeakers come very close to

>duplicating instruments. Close enough to satisfy most lovers

>of music like myself. On my mid-fi system, a piano does sound

>like a piano; a guitar does sound like a guitar; a cello does

>sound like a cello. It’s obvious to me they will never sound

>the same as those instruments being played before me live at

>home. How is it possible for a vibrating cone to produce all

>the same subtle tones as a vibrating gut string of a violin or

>cello? It simply just can’t happen. On the other hand, it

>comes darn close and that’s enough to satisfy myself and

>evidently, many millions of listeners before me.

You didn't address either of my two comments about the failure of audio equipment to perform as intended, one the vast difference between the spatial radiating patterns of musical instruments and loudspeakers resulting in radically different interactions with room acoustics and resulting sound fields, and the other being the lack of capability of most sound systems to compensate for the vast differences between the way recordings are made, so much so that if a sound system could be made accurate playing one recording, it wouldn't be playing any other recording because there is no standard way to make a recording.

>

>Also, I think the goal of EXACT duplication of music studio or

>concert hall realism in our home listening environments is

>pure folly. Again, modern audio technology has come very close

>to duplicating the spaciousness of a concert venue via proper

>choices of microphone (critical step), microphone placement

>(also critical) and electronic recording and reproducing

>equipment. Some labels do the recording part very well. Others

>don’t. Some speakers do the playing job very well. Others

>don’t. Tweakers have massaged their audio systems to play

>music to suit their tastes for realism and they should indeed

>be proud of their accomplishment.

So you believe that people who claim they can hear the difference between one capacitor and another, one speaker wire and another, one tube and another, one power cord and another, cannot easily hear the difference between sound coming out of two boxes in their living room and a one hundred piece symphony orchestra performing in a one million cubic foot room carefully designed and tuned by experts at a cost of over one hundred million dollars? I think audiophilia is a mental disease characterised by some kind of delusional state.

>.....But, to disparage the

>loudspeaker industry for not developing the ultimate

>reproducer of live music is also unfair. Because……………….

So when you buy the best effors of Von Schweikert, Peter Qvortrop, or Wilson, you should not be surprised or disappointed if they don't sound accurate because.........what do you expect for $125,000 to $150,000 for a pair of loudspeakers, perfection?

[tysontom]

>

>The time based oscilloscope photographs of the sweeep storage

>scope are the same musical passage, first as picked up live by

>the microphone as the recording was being made, then as picked

>up by the same microphone placed near a loudspeaker, and then

>as a trace of the elecrical input to the loudspeaker. The two

>to compare when considering the loudspeaker are b and c

>because this shows the similarity and difference between the

>electrical input and acoustical output, in other words, its

>accuracy as a transducer. The difference between A and B

>shows the errors introduced by the tape recorder and the

>amplifier combined and is therefore in and of itself worthless

>since errors cannot be ascribed to one or the other. Despite

>the superficial similarities, close examination shows that all

>three are quite different in their details.

Well, no, b and c are *not* the ones to compare simply because one is electrical and the other is acoustic. Besides, no effort was made to correct the amplitude on the long-persistence scope to equalize the output display levels. A and b should be compared simply because one is the acoustic output of the piano recorded by the mike and the other is that same acoustic output of the piano played through the AR-3 recorded by the mike, with appropriate levels adjusted. In any event, the idea was *not* to compare accuracy, but to show the actual output voltage necessary to produce realistic levels. The comparison of the AR-3 to the piano was purely incidental.

--Tom Tyson

[soundminded]

>>

>>The time based oscilloscope photographs of the sweeep

>storage

>>scope are the same musical passage, first as picked up

>live by

>>the microphone as the recording was being made, then as

>picked

>>up by the same microphone placed near a loudspeaker, and

>then

>>as a trace of the elecrical input to the loudspeaker. The

>two

>>to compare when considering the loudspeaker are b and c

>>because this shows the similarity and difference between

>the

>>electrical input and acoustical output, in other words,

>its

>>accuracy as a transducer. The difference between A and B

>>shows the errors introduced by the tape recorder and the

>>amplifier combined and is therefore in and of itself

>worthless

>>since errors cannot be ascribed to one or the other.

>Despite

>>the superficial similarities, close examination shows that

>all

>>three are quite different in their details.

>

>Well, no, b and c are *not* the ones to compare simply because

>one is electrical and the other is acoustic. Besides, no

>effort was made to correct the amplitude on the

>long-persistence scope to equalize the output display levels.

>A and b should be compared simply because one is the acoustic

>output of the piano recorded by the mike and the other is that

>same acoustic output of the piano played through the AR-3

>recorded by the mike, with appropriate levels adjusted. In

>any event, the idea was *not* to compare accuracy, but to show

>the actual output voltage necessary to produce realistic

>levels. The comparison of the AR-3 to the piano was purely

>incidental.

>

>--Tom Tyson

With all due respect, I must strongly disagree. There is nothing in the photgraphs to lead anyone to the conclusion that the acoustic output of the AR3 will or will not sound like the piano. The discrepencies between A and B could be attributable to the tape recorder, the amplifier, the speaker, or any combination of them. The discrepencies between B and C could only be attributable to the speaker. As I said in my posting above, whether the speaker can be made to sound like the piano depends strongly on the acoustic environment they are placed in. Their directional sound propagating characteristics are miles apart. The room acoustics can reduce or eliminate the effective audible result of that, can reveal it, it can even magnify it. In critical ways, taken in totality they are not at all alike. As for the amplifier power required to achieve a given sound pressure level from an AR3, we know that the demands are great, in fact according to the Altec salesman I ran into at a trade show, nine times as great as an A7 Voice of the Theater. The Mattes amplifier was a powerful amplifier by comparison to most others in its day. I don't know if the Crown DC300 or the McIntosh 3000 was available yet. By today's standards of course, it is modest, your own Crown Reference Standard amplifier having many times the power reserves of the Mattes. I really don't see the point in any of it though, if you need more sound power than an AR3 can provide, just install more of them. That's what the engineers who arranged the demo of the Aolean Skinner pipe organ did, they used four speakers.

I'm puzzled about some statements you and Carl made in your previous postings. You both seem to contradict yourselves.

You said;

"The purpose of showing those waveform photographs was to demonstrate that a high-quality loudspeaker such as the AR-3 was capable of a reasonable facsimile of the original sound, as picked up by the recording microphone. This illusion was also clearly shown in other live-vs.-recorded demonstrations conducted by AR using that speaker."

but;

"*no* loudspeaker ever designed comes remotely close to perfect reproduction --"

I find it difficult to reconcile these two statements.

Carl said;

"Well designed and constructed loudspeakers come very close to duplicating instruments. Close enough to satisfy most lovers of music like myself. On my mid-fi system, a piano does sound like a piano; a guitar does sound like a guitar; a cello does sound like a cello."

but;

"It’s obvious to me they will never sound the same as those instruments being played before me live"

They sound very close even on a "mid fi" sound system but they will NEVER sound the same. I've got difficulty with that one too. And with the following;

"Also, I think the goal of EXACT duplication of music studio or concert hall realism in our home listening environments is pure folly."

but

"Again, modern audio technology has come very close to duplicating the spaciousness of a concert venue"

It can come very close already but it's folly to try???????

I really don't know what to make of these statements. They seem to straddle both sides of each issue contradicting each other. I'd be happy for an explanation.

[Carlspeak]

"Well designed and constructed loudspeakers come very close to duplicating instruments. Close enough to satisfy most lovers of music like myself. On my mid-fi system, a piano does sound like a piano; a guitar does sound like a guitar; a cello does sound like a cello."

but;

"It’s obvious to me they will never sound the same as those instruments being played before me live">

NO CONTRADICTION HERE: THE TERMS 'VERY CLOSE' AND 'THE SAME' ARE SIMPLY NOT THE SAME. ERGO - NO CONTRADICITION.

EVIDENTLY, NO ONE ELSE DID

"Also, I think the goal of EXACT duplication of music studio or concert hall realism in our home listening environments is pure folly."

but

"Again, modern audio technology has come very close to duplicating the spaciousness of a concert venue">

AGAIN, NO CONTRADICTION HERE. THE TERMS 'EXACT DUPLICATION' AND 'COME VERY CLOSE' ARE AGAIN NOT THE SAME THING. THERE IS NO MYSTERY HERE TO PONDER. I DID'T MINCE WORDS.

YES, IF YOU HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO BUT TINKER INSTEAD OF ENJOYING THE MUSIC. HOWEVER, NOTE I DID GIVE CREDIT TO THE TWEAKERS (LIKE YOURSELF) WHICH YOU NEGLECTED TO REFERENCE. WHATEVER FLOATS YOUR BOAT.

AS SHERLOCK HOLMES USED TO SAY "ELEMENTARY MR. WATSON, ELEMENTARY".

IN CASE YOU MAY HAVE MISSED THAT TOO, I DISCUSSED TWO DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF ACCURATE MUSICAL REPRODUCTION.

THE FIRST BEING THE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY'S (VIBRATING CONE) CLOSE (BUT IMPERFECT) MATCHING OF THE SUBTLE TONAL QUALITIES OF EACH INSTRUMENT. WE CAN TELL WHAT THE INSTRUMENT IS WHEN LISTENING TO A RECORDING THRU OUR HIFI SYSTEM BUT ALSO KNOW THAT A LIVE PERFORMANCE SIMPLY DOESN'T SOUND QUITE THE SAME. I BELIEVE YOU HAVE ALUDED TO THAT IN A NUMBER OF PRIOR POSTS.

THE SECOND POINT ADDRESSED REPRODUCTION OF HALL AND STUDIO AMBIENCE AND SPECTRAL QUALITIES OF MUSICAL REPRODUCTION. THAT IS SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT THAN MAKING A TRUMPET SOUND EXACTLY LIKE A TRUMPET. IN MY VIEW THESE ARE TWO DISTINCT BUT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE CHALLENGES FOR RECORDING AND AUDIO EQUIPMENT ENGINEERS.

It's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

[soundminded]

"IN CASE YOU MAY HAVE MISSED THAT TOO, I DISCUSSED TWO DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF ACCURATE MUSICAL REPRODUCTION.

THE FIRST BEING THE CURRENT TECHNOLOGY'S (VIBRATING CONE) CLOSE (BUT IMPERFECT) MATCHING OF THE SUBTLE TONAL QUALITIES OF EACH INSTRUMENT."

"THE SECOND POINT ADDRESSED REPRODUCTION OF HALL AND STUDIO AMBIENCE AND SPECTRAL QUALITIES OF MUSICAL REPRODUCTION. THAT IS SOMETHING QUITE DIFFERENT"

Well at least that's one point we can agree on. The problem they are here is very different from the problem you are there. The second problem is much much harder to solve. Can one theory of acoustics solve both? I've often thought that if there are actually any serious competent people out there who are trying to solve these problem (I'm not talking about someone trying to build a better speaker or amplifier according to current paradigms) they might take some time to put down their calculators and PCs and talk to people who actually are expert at and have solved problems of creating illusions, magicians. They are expert at making you think you are seeing one thing when you are actually seeing another. It's a similar kind of problem, you really have to go back to basics and start from scratch I think. How could you make AR3 sound like a grand piano? Well if it were my problem, I'd need about 15 or 20 of them. I'd place about a dozen of them on the perimeter of a circle around the outside of the piano facing outwards at ear height and the rest lying on their backs nearby. Adjusting the volume and equalization of each one independently and carefully, eventually I think I could tweak them to sound very close. A single one or a pair? Faggedaboudit, won't happen, not outside an anechoic chamber or in the middle of a very large room with the audience sitting only in front of the speaker near to its axis. Even then critical listeners should have no problem telling the two apart although they could sound similar in some respects such as timbre.

I'm not going to quibble over the notion that you say on one hand they are very close already at the "mid fi" level of performance but could NEVER be the same. I'll also pass on further comment on the statements that already achieving concert hall spaciousness can be accomplished but its further pursuit is pure folly. I'll leave it to others to decide for themselves if these statements are contradictory and mutually exclusive or not.