ar_pro Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 The November issue lists the 3a as the 97th (!) most important audio product since 1962. John Atkinson calls it "ugly, colored, and with rolled-off highs...I never liked it, but I can't ignore it." Interesting...damned with faint praise, this groundbreaking design did manage to make it into the US exhibit at a World's Fair & the Smithsonian (ugly?!?) - it's "rolled off highs" (correctly assessed by the posters on this group) again inaccurately represented by someone who ten years ago, admitted to never having previously heard the AR3a. Oh, he "REALLY didn't like the LST", too. The #1 component is the Linn Sondek LP12 - a (surprise!) UK product that "brought the sonic benefits of belt drive and a suspended subchassis to more audiophiles than all other high-end 'tables combined." - geez, so where does that leave the AR turntable, and the Thorens TD-125, John? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rickcee Posted October 22, 2002 Report Share Posted October 22, 2002 Hi Well, Stereophile is NOT your average cup of tea - I think I saw about a year ago that it's subscribers average Hi Fi system cost 14,000 $. ! That's so far past point of diminishing return . . I would think the AR 3 would be one of top 5 'all time' speakers - not in terms of totall pristine accuracy, but in importance, bringing Hi Fi to the ugly masses. Like Wilson puppies are more important ? ? I still play lp's maybe once a month, from a $150. Pioneer belt drive. Some / any belt drive feature #1 ? This is the one percent crowd. Kinda humerous, actually. to each.Rick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tysontom Posted October 26, 2002 Report Share Posted October 26, 2002 > The #1 component is the Linn Sondek LP12 - a (surprise!) UK >product that "brought the sonic benefits of belt drive and a >suspended subchassis to more audiophiles than all other >high-end 'tables combined." - geez, so where does that leave >the AR turntable, and the Thorens TD-125, John? Ironically, the Linn Sondek LP12 is a souped-up direct copy of the AR-XA's engineering, yet costs many times more than the AR table. Granted, it has more "precision," accomodates different tonearms, but the turntable itself will not out-perform the AR-XA. I suspect that AR made 100-times more XA's than Linn made LP12's, so Atkinson's ludicrous statement above reflects the "shoot-from-the-hip" style of *Stereophile* magazine. This is why it is no surprise. --Tom Tyson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToastedAlmond Posted October 26, 2002 Report Share Posted October 26, 2002 I never listen to those guys. At least not when it comes to lists and stuff. The number, and magnitude of contributions made by a small handful of people, will probably go forever uncredited. I think I have that Stereophile issue around here someplace. I haven't read it through yet, but I'll wager it makes no mention of AR, KLH, Advent, and Dynaco being responsible for placing excellent sound in MORE homes, than all the rest of Stereophile's "darling" companies combined. George Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 29, 2002 Report Share Posted October 29, 2002 I've seen a lot of stereo equipment and speakers come and go over the last thirty years or so, and the AR-3a was far from being "ugly." Calling the AR-3a "ugly" would be like ROAD & TRACK, today, trying to insinuate the classic, legendary 1961 Lincoln Continental as being "ugly" in the history of post WWII automobiles!I always wondered if the writers and most of the more "elite" readers of STEREOPHILE actually used and listened to the equipment and speakers they boasted about, or do they merely sit in a room and just look at it? Where the hell is the original STEREO REVIEW and AUDIO magazines when you need them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.