Some AR2ax measurements

[soundminded]

Maybe to those of you who actually work in the field. As someone whose only role in it is to listen to products and spend money, I know that the fact that you all can't agree on a single, standardized method is what makes most speaker measurements pretty much useless as a predictor of the actual listening experience. If all speakers were measured the same way, then the results might be as useful as the EPA mileage numbers on cars: by themselves they'd tell you little about real-world performance in your living room and nothing at all about whether you will like that performance, but once you had taken the time to listen to a lot of product and decide which ones you like and don't like, they might make it possible to predict whether an unknown product will be closer to the ones you like or the ones you don't.

So ether pick just one method and use it on everything, or use them all on everything. Anything else just presents those of us who are not in your field with the apparent spectacle of a bunch of dueling know-it-alls repeatedly pelting each other with apples and oranges.

genek, you don't get it. The problem has completey beaten them, totally baffled them (pun intended.) All of them. Not only can't they solve it, they don't even understand it. They haven't even managed to define it clearly in meaningful technical terms yet. The rest is all blah blah hype, the advertising and the reviews. You have to wonder if any of these companies even owns a piano. You have to wonder if any of the reviewers who laud them ever even heard a real one. If it wasn't so, there wouldn't be another world's greatest speaker coming out every other month. The speaker companies aren't the only ones who have to find a way to sell products, so do the people who write reviews. Read the reviews of 30 or 40 years ago and read the most recent ones. They are interchangeable except for the names of the manufacturers and model numbers. They rarely admit to the truth even to themselves except in their darkest moments.

[genek]

The problem has completey beaten them, totally baffled them (pun intended.) All of them. Not only can't they solve it, they don't even understand it. They haven't even managed to define it clearly in meaningful technical terms yet.

If "the problem" is producing speakers that are "accurate reproducers," then I certainly agree. I've not heard a single audio system in my 55 years on this Earth that could convince me that I was listening to live music in a different environment - big concert hall, small venue or outdoor stadium - in my living room (though I have heard more than a few that came close to convincing me that the musicians could actually be in my living room - perhaps that's a small-scale version of the AR "live vs recorded" demo). I'm referring to what should be the much less complex prospect of looking at the measurements of an unknown but probably not "accurate" speaker and being able to make an educated guess as to how its sound will compare to that of another probably not "accurate" speaker whose sound and measurements I already know.

I don't pay any attention to marketing claims about speakers, though if Edgar Villchur were to send me an email endorsing someone's new design as being the closest thing ever built to his ideal speaker, that might be different.

Mostly, I just go listen with my checkbook in my hands, and so far I haven't been tempted by anything I've heard since the 70's. So my listening experience tends to support your view that there's been no significant advancement in "the state of the art" since.

[genek]

I've always thought it one of life's great ironies that after Villchur left the audio equipment businesss, he went into the hearing aid business. I've wondered how many of his customers for his later products acquired the need for them by abusing their hearing using his earlier products.

I would guess the incidence of this to be pretty low. Villchur left AR in 1967. Most of the products he personally oversaw the creation of predate the emergence of the worst of the massively loud, ear-damaging varieties of rock music and just burn out their tweeters and mids when subjected to the levels of distortion-laden power necessary to play them at concert levels in your living room.

[Zilch]

If "the problem" is producing speakers that are "accurate reproducers," then I certainly agree. I've not heard a single audio system in my 55 years on this Earth that could convince me that I was listening to live music in a different environment - big concert hall, small venue or outdoor stadium - in my living room (though I have heard more than a few that came close to convincing me that the musicians could actually be in my living room - perhaps that's a small-scale version of the AR "live vs recorded" demo).

Different issues. You're confusing accuracy and realism. We know what accurate is, and can measure it. Realism is not even approachable without first having accuracy.

Frequency response is the single most important aspect of the performance of any audio device. If it is wrong, nothing else matters.

Realism is limited by the medium, from start to finish, from how and where the microphones are placed and their response characteristics to where we sit and listen. Only multi-channel affords the possibility of creating the illusion of a performance space in a small room, and we, and I mean the entire chain in the process, are only just beginning to figure out how to use it.

The old saw that we don't know what we're doing is simply invalid. Villchur himself said it:

As a matter of fact, the experienced person who can interpret properly made measurements can predict accurately what a speaker will sound like even before it is hooked up to a hi-fi system. [Emphasis added]

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/library...esting_and_mea/

We are merely debating the most meaningful metric(s) for the interpretation, and as Dave says, there is general consensus in the field.

[There ARE recalcitrant holdouts in evidence here, however.... ]

[genek]

Different issues. You're confusing accuracy and realism. We know what accurate is, and can measure it. Realism is not even approachable without first having accuracy.

No, I'm not. "Realism" is an utterly rubber standard that varies with the discernment of the listener. To my 89-year old mother who is hard of hearing, the sound of a 30-year old Soundesign shelf system probably delivers all the "realism" she could perceive. And let's not forget all those AR "live vs recorded" reviewers who were taken in by supposedly highly "inaccurate" speakers under "contrived conditions."

"Accuracy" should certainly be measurable, although I would say that if there is not a settled consensus of what to measure, I would say it isn't yet.

If my subjective perception of a reproduction system is that it has "realism," I couldn't care less if it's "accurate" or if the conditions under which it delivers my perception of "realism" to my ears is "contrived" or not. And many of the speakers I have heard over the years that were touted as "highly accurate" sounded like crap to me.

You all can debate "meangingful metrics" til the cows come home. I already know from years of shopping experience that nothing I see on paper for an unknown speaker can predict how I'm going to like the sound when I hear it. All I expect out of measurements is the ability to determine if what I have is still working as well as it did the day it left the factory and identify suitable service parts when needed.

[Zilch]

"Realism" is an utterly rubber standard that varies with the discernment of the listener.

If my subjective perception of a reproduction system is that it has "realism," I couldn't care less if it's "accurate" or if the conditions under which it delivers my perception of "realism" to my ears is "contrived" or not. And many of the speakers I have heard over the years that were touted as "highly accurate" sounded like crap to me.

The ears are notoriously inaccurate, yet when examined under controlled conditions, contrary to common perception, listener preferences are surprisingly uniform, and well correlated with objective metrics in which accuracy is prime.

Other than in your role as a statistic, nobody but you and the salesman gives a whit what you like, and his interest is, well, "fleeting."

Your preferences define you, whereas, it's measurements that define the speaker....

[genek]

The ears are notoriously inaccurate, yet when examined under controlled conditions, contrary to common perception, listener preferences are surprisingly uniform, and well correlated with objective metrics in which accuracy is prime.

I must live under terribly uncontrolled circumstances. I don't know how else to explainthe fact that I haven't liked anything new I've heard in speakers in 30 years.

Other than in your role as a statistic, nobody but you and the salesman gives a whit what you like, and his interest is, well, "fleeting."

Probably no more so than mine, at least when it comes to shopping. Once I buy something, I don't buy it again until what I've already bought dies and can't be repaired or I hear something I like better. See above for how long it's been since that happened.

[Shacky]

The ears are notoriously inaccurate, yet when examined under controlled conditions, contrary to common perception, listener preferences are surprisingly uniform, and well correlated with objective metrics in which accuracy is prime.

Other than in your role as a statistic, nobody but you and the salesman gives a whit what you like, and his interest is, well, "fleeting."

Your preferences define you. Measurements define the speaker....

Here we go again. I choose, buy, listen to speakers because of how they sound to my ears.

Sales and manufacturers sure do give a whit. If word gets out how great peole feel speakers sound to their ears, they sell more speakers. Problem is today's industry gets too hung up on measurements that in many cases it's to the detriment of qualitative sound to consumer's (or non-consumer's for the knowledgable) ears.

It must be boring being you - picking speakers based on how they measure. You may neve know realism in audio if you continue to follow that track. I want musicality! Emotion! I'm not saying AR's, KLH's, Dynaco's are perfect. But they fit my needs the best out of any speaker I've had.

I want speakers (and the system driving them) that drive my soul. I don't give one "whit" what it's curves look like unless it's to explain the "it" I get from enjoying them.

Sinatra said of Ray Charles something to the effect - "he's got more of "it" than any of us..." Just as there's no way to measure the "it" in a performer, I'm convinced it's the same in speakers and other audio gear. To a previous poster's point - they just don't know what or how to measure it !

[genek]

I want speakers (and the system driving them) that drive my soul. I don't give one "whit" what it's curves look like unless it's to explain the "it" I get from enjoying them.

I'm still waiting for this part. I figure it must be in here somewhere. Otherwise I would have quit reading these measurement threads weeks ago.

[Zilch]

I must live under terribly uncontrolled circumstances. I don't know how else to explain the fact that I haven't liked anything new I've heard in speakers in 30 years.

Perhaps you're listening to the wrong stuff.

It must be boring being you - picking speakers based on how they measure.

It's unlikely you will ever know, Shacky.

Sales and manufacturers sure do give a whit. If word gets out how great people feel speakers sound to their ears, they sell more speakers.

And the last time you bought speakers was when?

It's what we do, actually, figure out what people like and how to make that. Nobody's in it for the purpose of insulting your listening preferences, as you apparently presume.

I'm still waiting for this part. I figure it must be in here somewhere. Otherwise I would have quit reading these measurement threads weeks ago.

I believe we figured it out, at least with respect to AR's stated design intent -- ASW, apparent source width, from early reflections of wide dispersion speakers. Work with it. Take them outside and listen, where there are none. Inside, put absorbers at the first and second reflection locations, both sides.

If you determine that's it, and you still like that, ask yourself how it might be done better....

[soundminded]

If "the problem" is producing speakers that are "accurate reproducers," then I certainly agree. I've not heard a single audio system in my 55 years on this Earth that could convince me that I was listening to live music in a different environment - big concert hall, small venue or outdoor stadium - in my living room (though I have heard more than a few that came close to convincing me that the musicians could actually be in my living room - perhaps that's a small-scale version of the AR "live vs recorded" demo). I'm referring to what should be the much less complex prospect of looking at the measurements of an unknown but probably not "accurate" speaker and being able to make an educated guess as to how its sound will compare to that of another probably not "accurate" speaker whose sound and measurements I already know.

I don't pay any attention to marketing claims about speakers, though if Edgar Villchur were to send me an email endorsing someone's new design as being the closest thing ever built to his ideal speaker, that might be different.

Mostly, I just go listen with my checkbook in my hands, and so far I haven't been tempted by anything I've heard since the 70's. So my listening experience tends to support your view that there's been no significant advancement in "the state of the art" since.

"though I have heard more than a few that came close to convincing me that the musicians could actually be in my living room"

The first thing this statement demonstrates is that in the very definition of the problem, there are actually at least two entirely separate problems, one of reproducing musical sounds as they would be heard if the musicians were in your room, the other as they would be heard at another venue. And you are right, the second problem is much harder to solve in practical terms. Interestingly enough though and surprising even to me, they are both solved using the same mathematical equations, just applied differently. I applied my discoveries to solving the second problem first. It wasn't until 15 years later that I even began thinking about solving the first one.

The first easier problem is trickier than you'd think. I have two separate systems which can be adjusted to have the same spectral transfer function. But the one based on AR9s radiates its sound between 200 hz and 6 khz into space entirely differently than the one based on Bose 901. (sound below and above that range is radiated similarly but not identically.) As a result, no spectral transfer function applied to AR9 can possibly come close to matching the subjective quality of sound of the Steinway grand piano at the other end of the room while the Bose 901 can reproduce the illusion of a grand piano even when the spectral transfer function is not quite as accurately adjusted.

The way in which sound radiates from a source and arrives at a listener is a critical element completely overlooked by engineers and scientists who study this problem and try to solve it. Insofar as the harder problem of reproducing the acoustics of a concert hall which constitutes usually well over 90% of what we hear there (10% or less coming directly at us from the instruments themselves and very early reflections such as off the stage floor) the philosophy Villchur used of time and space integrating the spectral transfer of sound and applying it to a single pair of loudspeakers oversimplifies the problem to the point where the instruments no longer sound like musical instruments at all. When played through his speakers set "flat" they sound dull and indistinct compared to the real thing to my ears. This is the effect a high frequency rolloff of the directly arriving sound would be expected to create, a loss of the transient attack at the leading edge of each note that characterizes the precise sound of different instruments and a loss of the overtones too. (Bose 901 does the same thing but even moreso. Is this the East Coast New England sound, dull rolled off high frequencies compared to the West Coast's harsh irritating high frequencies you hear in horn systems like A-7? Neither are right.) The bad news is that the equations show that you cannot reproduce the timbre of musical instruments as they are heard in a concert venue without reproducing the rest of the acoustical effects as well because they are inseparable aspects of the same phenomenon. The worse news is that the equations also show that there is no way to accurately record and then reproduce it. The best you can get in this regard is a binaural recording but the limitations of this method is that reproduced through headphones the sound will appear to be coming from inside your head while reproduced through loudspeakers it will appear to becoming from inside the Holland Tunnel with you on the outside. As I said, the problem has beaten them. They can't solve it. At least they haven't yet.

Having listened to both recorded and live music all of my life, I don't want to give anyone the impression that recorded music hasn't and can't bring a huge measure of enjoyment and enrichment to life no other thing can substitute for. Without it all of our lives would be much poorer. Nobody including a king can have a command performance of any music he wants whenever he wants it. But so far, the claim that they are or can be audibly equivalent is a pure fiction. One day, that just might change.

[genek]

But so far, the claim that they are or can be audibly equivalent is a pure fiction.

I think "the industry" has just painted itself into a corner, creating a market demand for things it can't deliver. "Sounds good to me" used to be enough to make a buying decision.

[Zilch]

The worse news is that the equations also show that there is no way to accurately record and then reproduce it.

The good news is we're on to the cues, and may be able to sim it convincingly. Again, as you certainly know, only multi-channel can do that.

Binaural can move outside the head, also convincingly, with matrixing. I've provided links to that previously, but you apparently haven't read them....

[soundminded]

The good news is we're on to the cues, and may be able to sim it convincingly. Again, as you certainly know, only multi-channel can do that.

Binaural can move outside the head, also convincingly, with matrixing. I've provided links to that previously, but you apparently haven't read them....

Yes multichannel is the only answer. But how? The devil is in the details. There's multichannel and then there's multichannel.

I did not follow your link on binaural but that suggestion had been made many years ago. Frankly there was a point here recently where there were so many things being said so thick and fast that I lost track of most of it. I don't read every posting even on the threads I'm interested in and I don't follow most threads. There is only so much time. I probably haven't even heard any of more than half the recordings I own too. Terrible how busy life can get.

[Shacky]

It's unlikely you will ever know, Shacky.

I'm all broke up

[Shacky]

It's what we do, actually, figure out what people like and how to make that. Nobody's in it for the purpose of insulting your listening preferences, as you apparently presume.

So now you're touting yourself as the speaker industry? Give me a break.

[Zilch]

So now you're touting yourself as the speaker industry? Give me a break.

Please, Shacky, share your expertise with the group here.

Tell us where the nulls are coming from....

[Shacky]

Tell us where the nulls are coming from....

Don't know Zilch 'bout no nulls

[genek]

Perhaps you're listening to the wrong stuff.

Could be, but since the stuff I'm listening to is all the stuff I intend to listen to, that's what I base my shopping on.

I believe we figured it out, at least with respect to AR's stated design intent -- ASW, apparent source width, from early reflections of wide dispersion speakers. Work with it. Take them outside and listen, where there are none. Inside, put absorbers at the first and second reflection locations, both sides.

I'm not about to go to the effort to turn my listening space into an anechoic chamber, but I have taken my speakers outside on occasion (not lately) to play music at outdoor parties. Out on a patio, it's hard to tell the difference between a pair of AR-2ax's and a PA horn. Not much in the way of highs or lows. But copious amounts of food and liquor go a long way toward enhancing the experience anyway.

[soundminded]

It's what we do, actually, figure out what people like and how to make that. Nobody's in it for the purpose of insulting your listening preferences, as you apparently presume.

Actually I've always liked jukeboxes. Ever since I was a kid. I liked the whole idea. I like the way the sound of a good one was just right for the kind of recordings they played. I liked the lights. I liked watching the mechanism pick up the 45 RPM donuts and lay them on the platter. I even liked flipping through the pages listing the titles and pushing the buttons. (I also liked pinball machines and spent a summer playing them at a hotel in the Catskills when I was 5 years old.) Seeburg, the manufacturer of many of the mechanisms that handled the discs also made a version for LPs. I also like record changers even though most of them performed like junk. I was sad when my Miracord 50H's motor burned up. I'll bet I've owned a couple of dozen of various kinds. Duals were pretty good. Thorens had an interesting one that played only one recording at a time on a manual turntable while taking them off a top stack and then when finished putting them on a bottom stack with an arm. The Fisher Lincoln was also unique in that it played both sides of a record by turning it over. It was a re-incarnation of an old Capehart design. And then there was the ADC Accutrack. Neat toy. Even a Columbo murder was based on it, the episode with Herschell Bernardi in a kind of Mensa group. Watching a platter spin round and round is much more fun than sticking a disc in a drawer and then it disappears.

I also liked the sound of the Snell type A and accidentally discovered how the treble anomily I credit for its unique sound works. This happened a few months ago while I was experimenting with my AR9s. I listened to it that way for about 8 hours before I fixed it. Now that I know how, I will probably never go back to it again though.

I have no idea what any of this has to do with accurate sound reproduction of music. If the goal is making money then market research is the tool of choice. That's how Sidney Harman and his employee Dr. Toole operated. If it's advancing the state of the art of high fidelity, then scientific research is the only option beyond dumb luck hit or miss...which seems to have always missed so far.

[Zilch]

Could be, but since the stuff I'm listening to is all the stuff I intend to listen to, that's what I base my shopping on.

I haven't liked anything new I've heard in speakers in 30 years.

Well, there it is, then, definitively speaking; you're looking at the wrong stuff.

I do believe you're asking the right question, though: "How's it look at 60°?"

Reformatted, the inquiry might be more productive: "Who makes 120° constant directivity speakers?"

You're $12 apiece away from an answer....

[genek]

Well, there it is, then, definitively speaking; you're looking at the wrong stuff.

I am living in a hifi wasteland. Home theater establishments left and right but a 30-mile drive to the nearest real audio dealer. And they're one of those nose-in-the-air "golden ear" places that bow down to things like cryogenic speaker cables with directional arrows on the jacketing.

[Zilch]

I am living in a hifi wasteland. Home theater establishments left and right but a 30-mile drive to the nearest real audio dealer. And they're one of those nose-in-the-air "golden ear" places that bow down to things like cryogenic speaker cables with directional arrows on the jacketing.

O.K., I'm gonna give you three to look at. Ask Speaker Dave what he thinks of these from the AR perspective of "max dispersion:"

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getf...&docid=1079

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getf...&docid=1080

http://www.jblpro.com/catalog/support/getf...&docid=1078

[genek]

O.K., I'm gonna give you three to look at. Ask Speaker Dave what he thinks of these from the AR perspective of "max dispersion:"

According to JBL's website, their nearest dealer is 70 miles away from me. I'm sure glad I'm not hard up for a new pair of speakers.

[Zilch]

According to JBL's website, their nearest dealer is 70 miles away from me. I'm sure glad I'm not hard up for a new pair of speakers.

JBL PRO dealers only; this is not retail. You must make sure they have them set up in their demo room, and make an appointment.

Several CSP members are building similars, actually, and may report their findings here upon completion....