Some AR2ax measurements

[soundminded]

A 1.5" deep recess is not exactly what I would call "thin," but it was just a wild guess, since I didn't have a 3a at the time to compare the 303 to.

Genek, how would you feel about a nearly vertical piece of sheetmetal 20" wide by 13" high with a two inch deep "shelf" to support the music at the bottom about a foot or two in front of every instrument in a 100 piece symphony orchestra, sometimes between you in the audience and the musical instrument? Look next time you go to a concert. (I just had to look in my music room.)

[Zilch]

Genek, how would you feel about a nearly vertical piece of sheetmetal 20" wide by 13" high with a two inch deep "shelf" to support the music at the bottom about a foot or two in front of every instrument in a 100 piece symphony orchestra, sometimes between you in the audience and the musical instrument? Look next time you go to a concert. (I just had to look in my music room.)

Let's pretend a violin has high directivity and plays down and forward....

[soundminded]

Let's pretend a violin has high directivity and plays down and forward....

Frightening thought. Then it might sound only like a loudspeaker. Who'd want to listen to it?

[genek]

Genek, how would you feel about a nearly vertical piece of sheetmetal 20" wide by 13" high with a two inch deep "shelf" to support the music at the bottom about a foot or two in front of every instrument in a 100 piece symphony orchestra, sometimes between you in the audience and the musical instrument? Look next time you go to a concert. (I just had to look in my music room.)

Since I've never experienced a concert from a position in the orchestra, all those pieces of metal (not to mention the sheet music on them) are an integral part of my original live music experience. Maybe I wouldn't enjoy the music as much without them there to mix up the sound waves a bit.

[soundminded]

Since I've never experienced a concert from a position in the orchestra, all those pieces of metal (not to mention the sheet music on them) are an integral part of my original live music experience. Maybe I wouldn't enjoy the music as much without them there to mix up the sound waves a bit.

It's a different experience and one I'd say is very inferior as a listener to being in the area designated for the audience. One problem for a large performing ensemble like a symphony orchestra is for the musicians to be able to hear each otherso that they can play in synchrony. Designers of concert halls have to pay special attention to this. It's why Beranek limits the size of the stage to 6000 square feet as one example. The percentage of hall reverberation in the total field you hear is much lower because you are close to the sources of sound, the instruments themselves. Musicians have to take hall reverberation into account in the way they perform and it's no more true than for conductors. Also for soloists. Why? Which of the four elements of music does it affect and how does it affect them?

[genek]

Which of the four elements of music does it affect and how does it affect them?

Damned if I know. I think you're mistaking me for someone who has a need to know these things. Remember my niche in the process: experience, like or not like, spend money or not spend money. Since audio is just a pale reproduction of live music, but my role is the same for both.

For me, "the four elements of music" are something like: do I like the composer and the piece; do I like the orchestra, conductor and venue; do the practicalities of life (finances, state of our health, spare time, accessibility of the venue, etc.) make attending worth the effort; and where are we going for dinner that night?

[Steve F]

"For me, "the four elements of music" are something like: do I like the composer and the piece; do I like the orchestra, conductor and venue; do the practicalities of life (finances, state of our health, spare time, accessibility of the venue, etc.) make attending worth the effort; and where are we going for dinner that night?"

I'm just a drummer, and most real musicians don't consider drummers to be musicians. But I was formally trained, I can read music and everything!

I remember this from years back: Melody, harmony, rhythm, and dynamics.

At least I think those are them.

I have to say that at this point in my life, GeneK's four elements are much more important to me. Especially dinner.

(Hey Gene, meet you there at 7:30.)

Steve F.

[kkantor]

"For me, "the four elements of music" are something like: do I like the composer and the piece; do I like the orchestra, conductor and venue; do the practicalities of life (finances, state of our health, spare time, accessibility of the venue, etc.) make attending worth the effort; and where are we going for dinner that night?"

I'm just a drummer, and most real musicians don't consider drummers to be musicians. But I was formally trained, I can read music and everything!

I remember this from years back: Melody, harmony, rhythm, and dynamics.

At least I think those are them.

I have to say that at this point in my life, GeneK's four elements are much more important to me. Especially dinner.

(Hey Gene, meet you there at 7:30.)

Steve F.

Hey, do you play out?

What do you call a guy who likes to hang out with musicians? .........

What do call a drummer who just broke up with his girlfriend? .........

How do get a drummer out of your house? .........

-k

[Steve F]

"Hey, do you play out?"

On occasion. I'm practicing now because I'm planning on sitting in at my daughter's wedding this summer and I don't want to embarrass myself too terribly.

I've heard most of 'em:

What do you call a guy who likes to hang out with musicians? ......... A drummer.

What do call a drummer who just broke up with his girlfriend? ......... Homeless.

How do get a drummer out of your house? ......... Pay him for the pizza.

[Zilch]

And the main point of my critique is that while he said what he said in your quote, nowhere in the book does he come up with examples of super-wide dispersing speakers to back up his claims, or prove the advantages or disadvantages of speakers like the LST, Allison models, or the dbx Soundfield model, not to mention the Bose 901. No examples; no specifics.

You are dismayed that Toole gave short shrift to designs based upon principles long since discredited by both science and the marketplace?

Why is that, Howard? Because you still believe in magic and mythology, perhaps?

Florida State University librarian Howard Ferstler has written a book about audio that has about as much to do with audio reality in the '90s as bell-bottom pants and "Laugh-In"; High Fidelity Audio/Video Systems is about as dated and uninformative a how-to book on hi-fi as I've ever read.

http://www.stereophile.com/reference/101/

Now, nearly twenty years later, and Toole must surely have seen the light?

[kkantor]

"Hey, do you play out?"

On occasion. I'm practicing now because I'm planning on sitting in at my daughter's wedding this summer and I don't want to embarrass myself too terribly.

I've heard most of 'em:

What do you call a guy who likes to hang out with musicians? ......... A drummer.

What do call a drummer who just broke up with his girlfriend? ......... Homeless.

How do get a drummer out of your house? ......... Pay him for the pizza.

OK...

What's the only way in the world to get a rock guitarist to turn down their volume?

What's the difference between an orchestra and a bull?

[Steve F]

OK...

What's the only way in the world to get a rock guitarist to turn down their volume?

What's the difference between an orchestra and a bull?

I said I'd heard most of 'em, not ALL of 'em.

I'm looking forward to adding these to my repertoire.

Steve F.

[genek]

OK...

What's the only way in the world to get a rock guitarist to turn down their volume?

What's the difference between an orchestra and a bull?

Put sheet music in front of him.

The bull has its horns in the front and its a**hole in the back.

[Shacky]

Put sheet music in front of him.

The bull has its horns in the front and its a**hole in the back.

ROFLMAO

[Shacky]

Since I"m in the medical field I know more medical jokes.

What's the definition of a Proctoscope?

[kkantor]

Since I"m in the medical field I know more medical jokes.

What's the definition of a Proctoscope?

I have no idea... is it a Mozilla-based browser for surfing audio groups.....?

-k

[kkantor]

Put sheet music in front of him.

The bull has its horns in the front and its a**hole in the back.

We Have a Winner!!!!

-k

[Shacky]

Since I"m in the medical field I know more medical jokes.

What's the definition of a Proctoscope?

It's a medical instrument about yeah long with an a-hole on each end

[Zilch]

That those designs have been discredited in the marketplace is because of a decline in listener taste. (Telarc Records recently folded, by the way, due to a continuing decline in classical record sales.) As you have stated, nobody listens to live music any more, certainly not that classical stuff. So, in your world view they no longer need speakers (including the classic AR models) that replicate the spectral balance of live music performed in concert halls.

Anybody who wants that artificial coloration need only push the "Hall" soundfied button to hear it in full measure, for any hall they might prefer.

In addition, the AR and Allison concepts have not been discredited by science, at least not real science. On the other hand, they have been discredited by your ersatz science, as evidenced by your very wrong assumptions about the non-dominance of the reverberant field in typical home listening rooms.

I have suggested how you might yourself ascertain the truth, several ways, actually, but you'd obviously prefer to recite this tired mantra ad infinitum and en perpetuity rather than actually DOING anything that might invalidate it....

[Steve F]

I apologize in advance for the length of this reply.

There has been much discussion about whether or not the early AR L v R demos were ‘contrived.’ If by contrived it is meant that the demos were designed in such a way as to present the products under consideration in the best possible light for reasons of maximum commercial benefit, then yes, of course they were ‘contrived.’

It could just as easily be said that EVERY presentation of a commercial product is similarly ‘contrived,’ no? The most profitable TVs are given the best eye-level positioning in the most favorable store lighting at Best Buy. That demo Honda Accord is tuned and detailed to a fare-thee-well so that when it’s driven it makes the best possible impression on the customer who’s just come from the Toyota dealership. The most profitable canned peas are placed on the best shelf position at the supermarket.

And so on. Every presentation of a product for profit in a free-enterprise system is a contrived situation to some degree, so to my way of thinking, those early AR L v R demos were not contrived or disingenuous to any more or less a degree than other products in other situations. The Accord IS a good car. The 1964 AR-3 WAS a good speaker. That their respective manufacturers/retailers made every effort to present those products in a favorable sale light is fine with me. That’s called salesmanship, and it’s incumbent on the customer to sift through the claims, be reasonably informed, and make a reasonable decision. Honda and AR were (are) credible manufacturers of quality products, and a customer buying one of their products was getting a respectable item, regardless of the “contrived” nature of the presentation. Neither company was selling worthless snake oil.

People may disagree with my premise, and that’s fine.

One thing that has not been talked about very much is the 1976-77 AR L v R demos of the AR-10 Pi vs. jazz drummer Neil Grover.

I never attended the early AR demos with the AR-3 and AR-4x vs. the string quartet or the Nickelodeon. I never spoke to the producers or the participants. I’ve never spoken to an attendee, other than reading what I’ve read here. So I have absolutely zero first-hand knowledge of them or any intimate familiarity with how they were done.

However, I did attend the Neil Grover demo as a member of the BAS at the AR factory. I have had lengthy conversations with Victor Campos (the AR engineer who produced the demo) as well as with Neil Grover himself. These conversations took place both at the time of the demo, and many years later, long after Campos had retired (around 2000) and had no vested interest in AR, and my conversations with Grover were in 2005.

Campos said the main reason that AR did the demo was to show that a relatively standard speaker of conventional design could do a reasonably convincing job of replicating live music if all the variables were controlled as well as could be. (I guess that means “contrived.”). He also wanted to dispel the notion that was popular at the time that some sort of “magic tweeter” was necessary for lifelike highs.

Did AR have an ulterior motive in doing the demo? Did they hope that by convincing and fooling critical BAS members and attendees at the previous summer’s CES Show in Chicago they (AR) would create a ‘buzz’ over their speakers and sell lots more?

Sure! That’s the point, obviously. If you have a good product or service, a sharp company will endeavor to present it in the best light possible, for maximum sales/profit advantage. That’s how it works. Nothing wrong with that. We all do it—just read your own resume. Everything is presented in the best possible light, for maximum personal gain. You have nothing to be ashamed of. If you’re a good worker, talented and accomplished, it will show once you’re on the job. If you’re not, then you’ll be exposed as a fraud soon enough. Same with consumer products, including audio.

But AR was making a quality product back then. It may or may not have been to your taste, but they were trying to build a quality speaker, according to what they believed made a good speaker.

Interesting that the 10 Pi did do such a good job in that Neil Grover demo. Very good, in fact. And the 10 Pi had virtually the same radiation pattern as the 3a, although it had a markedly different spectral balance. Draw whatever conclusions you wish about wide dispersion vs narrow or anything in between. The BAS group was about 20-30 people, in a fairly large room, spaced out across the drumset/speakers so that the ‘outside’ listener positions were outside the left and right speakers. The front row of listeners was about 8 or 10 feet or so away from the drums, and there were about four rows of seating, so the last row would have been about15-18 feet away from the drums.

I recall quite clearly that there was no listener position-dependent relationship regarding the degree that the demo was convincing. Most attendees were convinced. The ‘doubters’ were positionally scattered about. I sat in the front row, and as an experienced jazz drummer myself, in my early 20’s with excellent hearing at the time, I was very impressed.

Was it contrived? Of course it was, like all good consumer product presentations are. Did it “prove” anything? Not necessarily, other than the 10 Pi could play very loudly and it could present a realistic tonal simulation of live drums when fed with the recorded signal that Campos and co. created.

It was quite an interesting demo however, and for me, it’s difficult to dismiss AR’s design approach at that time as being totally without merit.

Steve F.

[Shacky]

but you'd obviously prefer to recite this tired mantra ad infinitum and en perpetuity rather than actually DOING anything that might invalidate it....

One could same the same about the tired mantra you repeat en perpetuity ad infinitum

[Shacky]

BTW here's that Stereophile editorial on "perfect" speakers.

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/how_high_...u_want_your_fi/

[Zilch]

BTW here's that Stereophile editorial on "perfect" speakers.

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/how_high_...u_want_your_fi/

Try to keep up, wouldya, Shacky?

I already posted it here.

One could same the same about the tired mantra you repeat en perpetuity ad infinitum

Alas, you forgot the "DOING" part....

[Carlspeak]

BTW here's that Stereophile editorial on "perfect" speakers.

http://stereophile.com/asweseeit/how_high_...u_want_your_fi/

I think the last paragraph of Guttenberg's Stereophile essay supports my signature line quite nicely!!

[soundminded]

I apologize in advance for the length of this reply.

There has been much discussion about whether or not the early AR L v R demos were ‘contrived.’ If by contrived it is meant that the demos were designed in such a way as to present the products under consideration in the best possible light for reasons of maximum commercial benefit, then yes, of course they were ‘contrived.’

It could just as easily be said that EVERY presentation of a commercial product is similarly ‘contrived,’ no? The most profitable TVs are given the best eye-level positioning in the most favorable store lighting at Best Buy. That demo Honda Accord is tuned and detailed to a fare-thee-well so that when it’s driven it makes the best possible impression on the customer who’s just come from the Toyota dealership. The most profitable canned peas are placed on the best shelf position at the supermarket.

And so on. Every presentation of a product for profit in a free-enterprise system is a contrived situation to some degree, so to my way of thinking, those early AR L v R demos were not contrived or disingenuous to any more or less a degree than other products in other situations. The Accord IS a good car. The 1964 AR-3 WAS a good speaker. That their respective manufacturers/retailers made every effort to present those products in a favorable sale light is fine with me. That’s called salesmanship, and it’s incumbent on the customer to sift through the claims, be reasonably informed, and make a reasonable decision. Honda and AR were (are) credible manufacturers of quality products, and a customer buying one of their products was getting a respectable item, regardless of the “contrived” nature of the presentation. Neither company was selling worthless snake oil.

People may disagree with my premise, and that’s fine.

One thing that has not been talked about very much is the 1976-77 AR L v R demos of the AR-10 Pi vs. jazz drummer Neil Grover.

I never attended the early AR demos with the AR-3 and AR-4x vs. the string quartet or the Nickelodeon. I never spoke to the producers or the participants. I’ve never spoken to an attendee, other than reading what I’ve read here. So I have absolutely zero first-hand knowledge of them or any intimate familiarity with how they were done.

However, I did attend the Neil Grover demo as a member of the BAS at the AR factory. I have had lengthy conversations with Victor Campos (the AR engineer who produced the demo) as well as with Neil Grover himself. These conversations took place both at the time of the demo, and many years later, long after Campos had retired (around 2000) and had no vested interest in AR, and my conversations with Grover were in 2005.

Campos said the main reason that AR did the demo was to show that a relatively standard speaker of conventional design could do a reasonably convincing job of replicating live music if all the variables were controlled as well as could be. (I guess that means “contrived.”). He also wanted to dispel the notion that was popular at the time that some sort of “magic tweeter” was necessary for lifelike highs.

Did AR have an ulterior motive in doing the demo? Did they hope that by convincing and fooling critical BAS members and attendees at the previous summer’s CES Show in Chicago they (AR) would create a ‘buzz’ over their speakers and sell lots more?

Sure! That’s the point, obviously. If you have a good product or service, a sharp company will endeavor to present it in the best light possible, for maximum sales/profit advantage. That’s how it works. Nothing wrong with that. We all do it—just read your own resume. Everything is presented in the best possible light, for maximum personal gain. You have nothing to be ashamed of. If you’re a good worker, talented and accomplished, it will show once you’re on the job. If you’re not, then you’ll be exposed as a fraud soon enough. Same with consumer products, including audio.

But AR was making a quality product back then. It may or may not have been to your taste, but they were trying to build a quality speaker, according to what they believed made a good speaker.

Interesting that the 10 Pi did do such a good job in that Neil Grover demo. Very good, in fact. And the 10 Pi had virtually the same radiation pattern as the 3a, although it had a markedly different spectral balance. Draw whatever conclusions you wish about wide dispersion vs narrow or anything in between. The BAS group was about 20-30 people, in a fairly large room, spaced out across the drumset/speakers so that the ‘outside’ listener positions were outside the left and right speakers. The front row of listeners was about 8 or 10 feet or so away from the drums, and there were about four rows of seating, so the last row would have been about15-18 feet away from the drums.

I recall quite clearly that there was no listener position-dependent relationship regarding the degree that the demo was convincing. Most attendees were convinced. The ‘doubters’ were positionally scattered about. I sat in the front row, and as an experienced jazz drummer myself, in my early 20’s with excellent hearing at the time, I was very impressed.

Was it contrived? Of course it was, like all good consumer product presentations are. Did it “prove” anything? Not necessarily, other than the 10 Pi could play very loudly and it could present a realistic tonal simulation of live drums when fed with the recorded signal that Campos and co. created.

It was quite an interesting demo however, and for me, it’s difficult to dismiss AR’s design approach at that time as being totally without merit.

Steve F.

Steve F

Since I am the one who has said they were contrived I'll explain what I meant.

"If by contrived it is meant that the demos were designed in such a way as to present the products under consideration in the best possible light for reasons of maximum commercial benefit, then yes, of course they were ‘contrived.’"

That is not quite what I meant.

First of all, the recordings were specifically made for a purpose and in a way that commercial recordings are not. I am not aware of any recordings of music sold on store shelves made in an anechoic environment.

Secondly, the nature of the setup, at least for the guitar player minimized early nearby reflections from the guitar which does not particularly radiate much of its sound omnidirectionally especially not at high frequencies anyway at least to the same degree most other instruments do. As I've explained elsewhere, the spatial radiating pattern depends not only on the construction of the instrument itself but even if it is inherently directional such as a horn, how it is aimed by the musician matters greatly and that even for horns they are almost always pointed away from the audience. The Nickelodeon which is more like an upright piano was a more remarkable demonstration than the guitar. This is why I'd like to hear the demo again even though I know that is impossible. I'd like to make a more critical judgement of just how accurate it was now that I am a far more experienced and critical listener.

Thirdly, we now find out that the spectral balance of the system was indeed altered by the electronics, in the case of the 2 demos I heard, by the use of the preamplifier treble control.

I am not dismissing the significance of these demos since they were AFAIK unique. But I am not going to exaggerate it either. The inference that AR3 or AR4x or AR10pi is an accurate speaker and can therefore accurately reproduce the sound of musical instruments from all recordings in your home the way they would be heard live, the inference AR would like the listener at the demos to have drawn is incorrect. In fact the demos only proved it could do it under the unique circumstances AR contrived on those specific instances. Still I enjoyed the demonstration and was quite surprised by both of them.

At the guitar demo, I sat almost directly on the axis of the speakers in and much to my surprise given a fair amount of experience with AR3, the speakers sounded slightly brighter than the guitar to my ears. People sitting somewhat more off axis may have had a different reaction.

About the Stereophile article;

"Indulge my fantasy for a second—I'm talking about a system with DC-to-light bandwidth, zero noise and distortion, and unlimited dynamic range and resolution. It's an audiophile conundrum: When output precisely matches input, have we attained nirvana?"

That is the absurdly naive audiophile notion Stereophile magazine and those of its cult often try to sell (they have other sales tactics as well which impute some kind of unknowable magical qualities to audio equipment that is even more absurd.) It flies in the face of every fact known to clinical psychologists about the characteristics and limits of sensory perception and about the nature and limitations of current recording practice and the philosophy of sound reproducing equipment. Maybe not attained nirvana????? Definitly not!!!!!

"Considered purely objectively, tube electronics are less "accurate" than solid-state; the same can be said of CD vs vinyl."

Absurd conclusions and generalizations with subtle but strong advertising implications.

"The very best high-end speakers and electronics are still a long way from perfect sound reproduction. Here, I define perfect as "indistinguishable from the sound of live music""

The same basic fact Stereophile Magazine, Floyd Toole, and most others have to concede as true because it is obvious and self evident to anyone with normal hearing. Then they go on to focus on "preferences" to justify megabuck junk they have already admitted is grossly defective in concept and execution to performe its implied function. Once they dispense with reality, it's time to get down to the serious business of making money by selling products.

"Does any of this matter? Most of my music collection hews closer to Springsteen's sound than to Cooder's."

For people like Steve Guttenburg probably not. Considering what he calls music and the deafening sound levels I'd guess he'd been exposed to listening to it (levels which when I'm exposed to anything like them, my first and only thought is "get me ouda here now....and fast") has probably made it a moot point for him. But for people who can still hear and appreciate the beautiful tone of a Steinway piano or a Guanari del Jesu violin in the right hands, the fact that the problem has beaten every last one of these people has come as a bitter disappointment. And while they are loathe to admit it, deep in their hearts all of them know it has. They've all but given up.