Some AR2ax measurements

[genek]

JBL PRO dealers only; this is not retail.

126 miles. Frankly, complacency is so much easier.

[Zilch]

126 miles. Frankly, complacency is so much easier.

I DO admire your sense of commitment....

[genek]

I DO admire your sense of commitment....

I don't really work at it at all. It's just a natural talent.

[Carlspeak]

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

Just curious, What are JBL's "directivity index" and "directivity factor"? and, how are they calculated?

Links please......

[Zilch]

Just curious, What are JBL's "directivity index" and "directivity factor"? and, how are they calculated?

Links please......

Directivity index (DI) is defined as the difference between the on-axis curve and the sound-power curve. It is thus a measure of the degree of forward bias -- directivity - in the sound radiated by the loudspeaker.

DI and Q (directivity factor, Rtheta) are mathematically interconvertible: DI = 10 log (Q)

Q 360° (spherical) = 1, 180° = 2, etc., such that a Q of 10, where DI and Q are equal, represents a dispersion angle of 1/10 of a sphere if axisymmetric, though it does not have to be so.

Invert the DI curve for an indication of how the sound-power curve rolls off with respect to the on-axis response when sound-power is not shown.

Ideally, all three should be smooth.

AR3a DI may be calculated from the Allison (1970) curves.

Assuming the B&K "Ideal" in-room response curve I posted above represents power response, (it doesn't really, but we're having speakergeek fun here,) what is the correspondingly ideal DI for a loudspeaker having flat on-axis response...?

[JKent]

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.

or just google them and buy online

[genek]

or just google them and buy online

No way I'd ever buy a speaker online that costs more than I'd be willing to throw away in the trash without hearing it first. Online buying is how I get cheap stuff to tear apart for projects (thanks to eBay, there's never anything useful to be found at flea markets and thrifts around here anymore).

[Zilch]

As to your reference ]to "the goal of high fidelity sound reproduction," what most readers and posters here probably want is a decent simulation of a live-music experience, particularly if they are interested in live-ensemble, acoustic-instrument classical and jazz material. You seem repelled by that kind of sound.

The AR mantra was "concert-hall realism". Allison showed exactly what that implied: rolled-off highs, diffuse soundstage and compromised imaging, characteristic of a 15th row seat in the audience. Listeners DO prefer an artificially enhanced apparent souce width. Point is, that can be achieved without sacrificing the sonic quality.

Speaker Dave's measurements reveal the problems, not the least of which are directivity issues and attenuated VHF. I am certainly seeing that many readers and posters here are expressing a desire to "fix" the highs. The tweeters have not deteriorated so much as many suppose; they were like that from the outset, intentionally, as may be seen in AR's own published curves, earning the speakers a deserved reputation of sounding "dull" by contemporary tastes, even when dialed "flat."

Wide dispersion is not particularly valuable if what's being sent out to reflect back does not have the spectral balance of the direct field. That's what constant directivity and uniform power response are about.

I have no problems with people measuring full-system speaker performance for their personical edification, but when the procedure is done up close as some here (including you) have done, the results are automatically problematic, and really do not have much to do with how the speaker performs in real-world listening situations. As for my biases, they have more to do with what properly matters in the realm of sound reproduction than do yours.

As for your comment about "the truth," I think that your problem is that you want speakers to do one thing and I want them to do something else. Your favored brand(s) may achieve your favored goals, and obviously my favored brand(s) achieve mine. OK, that is fine, but for you to say that the type I (and obviously several others here) prefer are somehow inherently inferior as high-fidelity sound reproducers is patently unfair and, well, wrong.

We have different definitions of "fidelity" and "realism" is all, Howard. You want to listen from the 15th row, whereas, I want to hear what the conductor hears. The concert hall is a room that alters the sound in a well-known manner which itself cannot be accurately reproduced with two-channels; the sonic experience is no less artificial than that generated by West Coast rock speakers.

I have no clue why so many leap to the conclusion that I am bashing the speakers, much less themselves and their preferences, personally. Is it rational to believe that what we like can only be delivered by 40-year-old technology and a design approach long since repudiated? I say, "No, figure it out and how to do it even better," and objective measurements point the way....

[Shacky]

Zilch,

I for one would like to know exactly (and please don't flower it but inserting all the fragments of speaker design you have learned to try and impress us) what it is you like, and what you dislike about AR speakers.

Couldyou come down off your pedestal for a moment and humor me? Try answering these 3 basic questions:

My favorite speaker is?

I like it best because it sounds ... (not measures) to me?

AR speakers to me sound ...?

I feel you take specific thread posts and generalize. As in The tweeters have not deteriorated so much as many suppose; they were like that from the outset, intentionally, as may be seen in AR's own published curves, earning the speakers a deserved reputation of sounding "dull" by contemporary tastes, even when dialed "flat."

That's taking Jerry's repeated comments about AR tweeters getting weak and needing bi-amping and making it sound like evryone here at CSP and over at AK says the same thing.

I like my AR 3a tweeters just the way they are. Same with my 2AX's. Only reason I used HiVi on my 5's is they were gone.

You argue like you are a "specialist". A specialist is someone who learns more and more about less and less untill they know everything there is to know about nothing!

I'll guarrantee you that you know and forever will have more knowledge about the science of speakers that I ever will - though not as much as many other in this thread that you keep trying to impress with your novice application of the data you have.

My time will be spent listening to music and enjoying my "imperfect" AR's (and other speakers that please me like KLH, Dynaco, and JBL) while you go deeper into your "if I know more facts I can tell people what they should like" hole.

So please - pretty please - share your answers to the above.

[Zilch]

So please - pretty please - share your answers to the above.

For approximately the twentieth time, I will again inform you that I'm not telling you or anybody else what to like or not. It's irrelevant who likes what; the purpose is to discover the nature of the speakers, and to what extent anyone likes or dislikes them, the probable reasons why, such that, if desirable, we might better understand them and what might be necessary to maintain or improve, or improve upon, them.

As to what I like, it's the fact that literally hundreds of members from various forums have seemingly benefited from what I do, and the contributions that provides to the loudspeaker knowledge base. I have tried my best to help you "get" it Shacky, without avail. At this point, I can only only ask you to least acknowledge that not everyone believes me the fool you perceive me to be, and perhaps look to yourself for the reason(s).

What loudspeakers I like is a personal question, about me, not speakers. If I thought you didn't have an ulterior motive for inquiring, namely, desultorily resolving the apparent cognitive dissonance what I do engenders, I would tell you straight up. Neither will I tell you whether I like AR3as or not; it's irrelevant to the fundamental purpose I pursue, and therefore, not going to happen.

This thread is about Speaker Dave's measurements, in my view, not about me. I believe it's clear what you think of the measurements, as well as about anyone who might have any genuine interest in discussing them and what they mean. Was there something else?

[genek]

I have no clue why so many leap to the conclusion that I am bashing the speakers, much less themselves and their preferences, personally. Is it rational to believe that what we like can only be delivered by 40-year-old technology and a design approach long since repudiated? I say, "No, figure it out and how to do it even better," and objective measurements point the way....

This is the inevitable result of going beyond objectively measuring the speakers and attempting to analyze/theorize about how the measurements describe the sound into making editorial comparisons between that sound and what the majority of contemporary speaker consumers and manufacturers prefer to buy and make. Don't say I didn't warn you.

The thin ice for the reaction was already in place because many people who like ARs have still been sufficiently brainwashed by years of marketing associating "flat response" and "accuracy," both of which are objective characteristics that can be quantitatively measured, with "good sound," which is a subjective, perhaps philosophical, concept that is inherently unmeasurable, except by the same statistical analysis that shows what percentage of the consuming population prefers a particular flavor of ice cream. IOW, if they like a sound, it must be "accurate," because "good sound" is "accurate," and anyone who tries to tell them otherwise is bashing their preference. Universal human reaction. Remember the poor soul who posted about his econowave mod to a "generally regarded as sacred" model of JBL speaker, and for his effort was hounded out of a JBL forum that ended up deleting his thread about it?

No, it is not rational to believe that only 40-year-old technology, or any particular technology at all, for that matter, can produce a desired result, any result. It could be rational to conclude, if the available evidence supports, that it's been 40 years since a manufacturer has made a new attempt to do it with any other type of technology (JBL Aquarius, anyone?). I'm actually looking forward to seeing if it is possible for someone's waveguide experiment to reproduce "the classic AR sound," and as I hsve said more than once (and in more than one of these measurement threads) it should be perfectly possible for someone to reproduce that sound without necessarily having to like it.

[Zilch]

Remember the poor soul who posted about his econowave mod to a "generally regarded as sacred" model of JBL speaker, and for his effort was hounded out of a JBL forum that ended up deleting his thread about it?

Only vaguely.

I left mine up, two of them, actually.

Nobody there seemed to mind when I additionally "updated" an AR4x pair....

I'm actually looking forward to seeing if it is possible for someone's waveguide experiment to reproduce "the classic AR sound," and as I have said more than once (and in more than one of these measurement threads) it should be perfectly possible for someone to reproduce that sound without necessarily having to like it.

Agreed, once the essential elements have been identified.

You will grant, however, that the likelihood of your proposition actually occurring is considerably enhanced by that task being assumed by someone who actually DOES like it.

I have already more than once provided the requisite cues here:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...ost&p=78116

I'm not trying to measure what I hear. For me, it's enough to hear it and to nag those of you who claim you can to back up your claims.

Yeah, well, we nag back, too....

[genek]

Nobody there seemed to mind when I additionally "updated" an AR4x pair....

I don't think the 4's generate nearly as much passion as the higher models. Everybody knows that compromises to the "ideal" AR sound were made to reduce cost.

You will grant, I presume, that the likelihood of your proposition actually occurring is considerably enhanced by that task being assumed by someone who actually DOES like it.

I suppose, but even someone who doesn't but is determined to flaunt his design prowess should be able to get around that by asembling a focus group of people who do. There's never a shortage of people willing to judge anything one does, is there?

[Zilch]

I suppose, but even someone who doesn't but is determined to flaunt his design prowess should be able to get around that by assembling a focus group of people who do. There's never a shortage of people willing to judge anything one does, is there?

The focus group is well-assembled, with ARs in evidence, along with Advents, KLHs, Dynacos, and Boston Acoustics, also ESS, HPMs, Bozaks, Wharfdales, EVs, Altecs, JBLs, others....

[Zilch]

I feel you take specific thread posts and generalize. As in "The tweeters have not deteriorated so much as many suppose; they were like that from the outset, intentionally, as may be seen in AR's own published curves, earning the speakers a deserved reputation of sounding "dull" by contemporary tastes, even when dialed 'flat.'"

That's taking Jerry's repeated comments about AR tweeters getting weak and needing bi-amping and making it sound like evryone here at CSP and over at AK says the same thing.

Sorry, not "everybody," apparently:

The Classic 30's (from the early 90's) did not have a 'dark' high end, as no AR was 'dark' after the introduction of the ADD's in 1975 (with their ferro-fluid-cooled tweeters that allowed a higher drive level to the tweeter without the thermal danger that such a drive level would have posed to the 3a-5-2ax tweeter).

I suppose "dark" IS more palatable than "dull...."

********

Just curious, What are JBL's "directivity index" and "directivity factor"? and, how are they calculated?

To illustrate, here is the polar response of a JBL midbass driver; you can see how the dispersion pattern changes with DI (last column) across the frequency spectrum, courtesy LHF member Robh3606:

[genek]

That's weird, I'm not seeing either of the posts that you just quoted...

My 1975 AR-2ax's still have their original tweeters, and have been played at levels and treble settings far in excess of anything I'd care to listen to for extended periods of time. Just how high a level does one have to drive these in order to damage them...?

I wouldn't argue with anyone who considers my speakers "dull" or "dark" by contemporary tastes, either. But every "contemporary taste" speaker I've heard in the past 30 years or so, including later models of AR's own products, has had me reaching for the treble control and often the bass control as well, to reduce the levels to something that sounds more to me like the real world. My car came with an Infinity sound system, and I really wish that both the bass and treble controls had another couple of notches of "cut" to them.

[Shacky]

As to what I like, it's the fact that literally hundreds of members from various forums have seemingly benefited from what I do, and the contributions that provides to the loudspeaker knowledge base. I have tried my best to help you "get" it Shacky, without avail. At this point, I can only only ask you to least acknowledge that not everyone believes me the fool you perceive me to be, and perhaps look to yourself for the reason(s).

What loudspeakers I like is a personal question, about me, not speakers. If I thought you didn't have an ulterior motive for inquiring, namely, desultorily resolving the apparent cognitive dissonance what I do engenders, I would tell you straight up. Neither will I tell you whether I like AR3as or not; it's irrelevant to the fundamental purpose I pursue, and therefore, not going to happen.

This thread is about Speaker Dave's measurements, in my view, not about me. I believe it's clear what you think of the measurements, as well as about anyone who might have any genuine interest in discussing them and what they mean. Was there something else?

Takes a pretty big ego to say you have tried and failed to help me "get it" Zilch.

I have absolutely no ulterior motive than to ask you to tell us honestly what you like. You can peruse my posts here and elsewhere and see plainly where my tastes lie. Same with just about everyone else here and at AK.

BTW I never called you a fool. You have helped me several times over at AK. I'm a novice compared to your experiene with speakers and I hope to gain from you in the future. I just have a philosophical dissagreement with the way you approach your science. No man is without bias and it would be much more scientific of you to just go ahead and clearly state yours. I promise not to trash your preferences.

[Zilch]

I find the word "dull" to describe the sound of the AR speakers you do not appear to like (or that Toole, who also used the term in his book, obviously does not like either) rather insulting, as if the speakers are prone to put the listener to sleep, due to a lack of excitement.

Well, take it up with Lynn Olson, which is where I first read it, in triplicate, actually:

By modern standards, they were dull, dull, dull, with mediocre imaging and coarse, low-resolution sound.

http://www.nutshellhifi.com/library/speaker-design1.html

Zilch (his sockpuppet name) is aware that if he reveals what you are asking for he leaves himself open to the same kind of "dissection" operations that he has been doing with most of the others here who have revealed their specific tastes, specific favored products, and what he does in the industry. My guess is that he is a JBL salesman of some sort, or at least has a job that involves the selling audio gear.

Experiencing some cognitive dissonance of your own, are you Howard?

"There can't be any truth to this; there's OBVIOUSLY something else going on here...."

Yes, some listeners do prefer an artificially enhanced soundstage width, and you can get that by more than one means. One way is to have outrigger "effects" speakers flanking the main L and R speakers, with the outriggers fed by reverb signals generated by a processor. This is the Yamaha approach, and I use that brand of processor myself. Two of them, actually. A second way is to have super-wide dispersion, such as what we get with the AR LST series, or the Allison Model One and Two, or the Allison IC-20 - the latter is what I own. So, I get stage width enhancement from both methods. And it works very well, basically moving me up from the 15th row to maybe the tenth. I also make use of a steered center channel speaker, to help stabilize the soundstage and also deliver better imaging than what one would normally get when listening to just two speakers, particularly when sitting away from the sweet spot, which is my norm. Interestingly, adding that center channel tends to move me back to the 15th row.

I agree completely with you when it comes to the limitations of two channel reproduction, which is why I use Yamaha processors and three main speakers up front and four surround speakers (and a subwoofer, too, of course).

So, even with "max dispersion" Allisons, you are running full blown 7.1 multi-channel using dual processors to generate the artificially enhanced soundfield you most enjoy?

COOL!

Nothing "wrong" with that, of course....

[soundminded]

You seem pretty certain about what "listeners" want, and that is one of your problems. Some listeners like the wide-dispersion results that AR speakers produced (including the AR-3a, and especially the LST series, as well as models Allison came up with after he left AR), and many will not be put off by an upper midrange and treble slope that tilts downward as the frequency rises. As for diffuse imaging, well, you get that with live concerts (at least in the typically good seats), and so any limitations in that area with AR speakers are not really limitations at all, at least with those who prefer a live-music simulation, imperfect as such a thing will be with playback in typically small home-listening rooms.

Yes, some listeners do prefer an artificially enhanced soundstage width, and you can get that by more than one means. One way is to have outrigger "effects" speakers flanking the main L and R speakers, with the outriggers fed by reverb signals generated by a processor. This is the Yamaha approach, and I use that brand of processor myself. Two of them, actually. A second way is to have super-wide dispersion, such as what we get with the AR LST series, or the Allison Model One and Two, or the Allison IC-20 - the latter is what I own. So, I get stage width enhancement from both methods. And it works very well, basically moving me up from the 15th row to maybe the tenth. I also make use of a steered center channel speaker, to help stabilize the soundstage and also deliver better imaging than what one would normally get when listening to just two speakers, particularly when sitting away from the sweet spot, which is my norm. Interestingly, adding that center channel tends to move me back to the 15th row.

Just about anybody who has been to a live classical concert will consider the spectral balance of speakers that deliver flat output clear out to the treble range as not quite right. The balance can work for jazz and pop, but not classical, usually. (And exception might be small-ensemble Baroque material.) Of course, much depends upon the recordings themselves, since some are recorded hotter than others. And of course much depends upon the listening room, with highly damped (padded) environments tending to make wide-dispersing speakers sound dull, due to their wide off-axis outputs being absorbed instead of reflected back to the listener.

Speaker Dave's measurements do not so much reveal limitations with the speakers he was checking out as reveal the limitations within the direct-field measurement protocol. There is no way that any single measurement taken of a full system from a one-meter distance (let alone a half-meter distance) can clue the person doing the test into just what those measurements mean in the way of real-world listening performance. The measurement results change faster than a stock market panic attack if you start measuring from different angles. That some here care to "fix" the highs with various AR speakers from the Villchur and Allison eras is more a reflection of musical tastes than speaker performance. With classical sources (and some jazz) the traditional AR/Allison approach works about as well as one is going to get with speakers in normal rooms. With pop sources (and some other jazz) one certainly might care to have a bit more treble punch, and if that is the case more power to those who like that kind of music and want to soup up their classic speakers to get that result. Frankly, if they like that kind of output it seems to make more sense to get some really good flat-responding speakers like certain (but not all) NHT models designed by Ken Kantor or Jack Hidley. I have reviewed some of those, and they do the flat-repsonse to 20 kHz dance remarkably well. Cut the treble a bit with the tone control or an equalizer and they also work sensationally well as classical music reproducers.

I find the word "dull" to describe the sound of the AR speakers you do not appear to like (or that Toole, who also used the term in his book, obviously does not like either) rather insulting, as if the speakers are prone to put the listener to sleep, due to a lack of excitement. Let's use the term "reticent" instead, which is a more elegant and accurate description. Note also that the speakers are not typically reticent unless the listening room is fairly well damped. In that case, the wide radiation they generate is absorbed by the surrounding padding, and the result is, well, to use your term "dull." In more normal rooms that is not so much the case, although I will admit that the speakers are not as ruler flat out to the top octave as some more current designs. Note that not all highly regarded current designs are flat into the near supersonic range. The Dunlavy line was not known for flat extension into the top octave, either, and they were not wide-radiating designs.

Understand that Allison's own measurements of the AR-3a, as well as his later measurements of the AR-LST (not to mention my own measurements of several of his later Allison Acoustics models) show that in typical rooms what is "reflected back" does indeed mimic the power response generated by the speakers. (His AES preprint that should be showing up here pretty soon, and will document both the adequately flat response of the AR-3a in most rooms and the dominant nature of the reverberant field.) Above about 500 Hz the spectral balance remains very similar from room to room, with only the slope changing as damping is added or subtracted. Consequently, wide-dispersing speakers (including the super-wide versions I prefer) can deliver a good balance between the direct and reverberant fields. Since (at least with wide-dispersing models) the reverberant field dominates unless you have speakers with outrageously narrow dispersion in the midrange and treble, the nature of the direct field is no big deal, with its job mainly being to stabilize the soundstage and deliver a degree of decent imaging. That you continue to downplay the dominance of the reverberant field shows that you have had limited experience with truly wide-dispersing speakers, or with live music presentations in good concert halls.

I agree completely with you when it comes to the limitations of two channel reproduction, which is why I use Yamaha processors and three main speakers up front and four surround speakers (and a subwoofer, too, of course). However, I have reviewed a lot of speakers for magazine reviews and when I do that I always do a lot ot two-channel auditioning, and I will tell you right now that ultra-wide dispersers like the LST and the angled-panel Allison Acoustics models deliver manage to do a much better job of simulating surround sound with just two speakers than any narrow-dispersion designs. As for simulating the 15th row vs simulating the sound at the conductor's podium, well, most people do not listen from the conductor's podium, and many would not care to, even if they could, and most who like classical music at least are more than satisfied to listen from out in the audience area, with its diffuse imaging and comfortable blend - and attenuated treble. The music was generally written to be listened to that way, and who am I (and certainly who are you) to say that the standard concert-hall experience is somehow deficient.

As for you bashing that 40-year-old technology, I am more than satisfied that with proper equalization, a proper room, and proper source materials really good speakers can do a subjectively near perfect job of delivering the goods. (This is aside from surround sound issues, by the way.) Villchur prooved that, as I have mentioned many times before. Allison went somewhat beyond what Villchur did when he came up with the AR-LST (and his Allison Acoustics models), but the main advantage of that approach was to make typical classical recordings listened to in typical home-listening areas sound even more realistic. The approach you prefer appears to head in the opposite direction.

Howard Ferstler

"I find the word "dull" to describe the sound of the AR speakers you do not appear to like (or that Toole, who also used the term in his book, obviously does not like either) rather insulting, as if the speakers are prone to put the listener to sleep, due to a lack of excitement. Let's use the term "reticent" instead, which is a more elegant and accurate description. Note also that the speakers are not typically reticent unless the listening room is fairly well damped"

I think that the word dull fairly describes a speaker with a rolled off high end. I've tried to understand why AR3 and AR3a always sounded dull to me when amplifier tone controls were set flat. Having visited this site and found out they have a high frequency rolloff explains it at least in part. Good thing for AR Ortofon and other MC cartridges had a high end resonant peak to offset it. The people who conducted the live versus recorded demos for AR had a choice, play the amp flat and have a dull sounding reproduction as a result that would obviously suffer in the comparison with the live performance or boost the treble and make the speaker sound like the guitar and the second time the Nickelodeon. Wisely they chose to do the latter. I see nothing wrong with that.

Live music heard at a concert hall does not have the dull sounding characteristic that AR3 and AR3a have without a treble boost. They have sharp clear attacks at the leading edge of each note, especially percussive instruments like pianos. This gives them great clarity and helps distinguish them one from another. The high frequencies fade from about one third to one half as fast as mid frequencies creating a mellower tone than you hear from speakers. Clearer and mellower at the same time, a seeming contradiction to an audiophile but this is the result of the spectral transfer of energy being a dynamic event, each echo having less relative high frequency than the previous ones and all of them less than the sound coming directly from the instrument. This is why it is impossible to reproduce the timbre of musical instruments from a recording without reproducing the rest of the reverberant field too. Filtering everything with a time weighted "average" spectral transfer is audibly different and IMO worse than hearing live music. That being said, the harsh treble sound produced by the horn systems I'd thought most audiophiles gave up on by the 1970s and the shrill sound of screeching highs from modern systems which beam practically all of their high frequencies at the listener are as bad or worse. Many are unbearable to listen to. And now most of the better preamps don't even have tone controls anymore.

Acoustics of concert halls are not well understood. If they were, disasters like Philharmonic (Avery Fisher) hall wouldn't happen or when they did, would be handily fixed. Instead they've been playing with the place for fifty years and by some accounts still haven't gotten it right to many concertgoers satisfaction.

One mention about so called "imaging." Even 10 or 15 rows back, the angle between the instruments on the extreme left and right are hardly much more than +/- 45 degrees and they are all about the same distance from a listener in a seat located at the center line of the concert hall. Also, most times, when music is scored for an instrument, several actually play at the same time. It's only rarely that the concertmaster plays a solo, usually 40 violins from 40 different points are playing at the same time. Turning that into a pinpont is a bad distortion of what you hear in a real performance.

[genek]

I think that the word dull fairly describes a speaker with a rolled off high end. I've tried to understand why AR3 and AR3a always sounded dull to me when amplifier tone controls were set flat. Having visited this site and found out they have a high frequency rolloff explains it at least in part. Good thing for AR Ortofon and other MC cartridges had a high end resonant peak to offset it. The people who conducted the live versus recorded demos for AR had a choice, play the amp flat and have a dull sounding reproduction as a result that would obviously suffer in the comparison with the live performance or boost the treble and make the speaker sound like the guitar and the second time the Nickelodeon. Wisely they chose to do the latter. I see nothing wrong with that.

If you read AR's treatise on setting the level controls on the 3a and 5, it is because recordings and playback equipment with overemphasized high end were the norm at the time that the speakers were designed to have the white dot balance that they did. The old chicken and egg question. Someday, AR editorialized, the rest of the hifi world would catch up with AR's technology and realize that their recordings were excessively bright, and when used to play properly balanced recordings the suitable speaker settings would be "flat:" turning both level controls up full and tweaking your treble control up a bit. Presumably, the recordings AR made for their live vs recorded demos were what they considered properly balanced sound, and therefore called for such a setting.

[Zilch]

And of course much depends upon the listening room, with highly damped (padded) environments tending to make wide-dispersing speakers sound dull, due to their wide off-axis outputs being absorbed instead of reflected back to the listener.

Nope, damping the reflections will shift the mix toward the spectral balance of the on-axis response, which is, of necessity, brighter. It will also narrow the apparent source width.

[soundminded]

If you read AR's treatise on setting the level controls on the 3a and 5, it is because recordings and playback equipment with overemphasized high end were the norm at the time that the speakers were designed to have the white dot balance that they did. The old chicken and egg question. Someday, AR editorialized, the rest of the hifi world would catch up with AR's technology and realize that their recordings were excessively bright, and when used to play properly balanced recordings the suitable speaker settings would be "flat:" turning both level controls up full and tweaking your treble control up a bit. Presumably, the recordings AR made for their live vs recorded demos were what they considered properly balanced sound, and therefore called for such a setting.

That's one possible explanation I've discussed more than once here. Altec A-7 was a very popular monitor speaker for US recording companies. I think the British preferred Tannoy. I once ran into a Tannoy salesman who said they'd made their latest version of their Gold Monitor a little brighter to compete with Altec based on preferences of the American Market. As I recall, in the bad old days of phonograph records, recording studios would have their monitor speaker equalization tested with a calibrated microphone and tweaked once a week. The $900 per channel 1/3 octave Altec Acoustvoice was the equalizer of choice. Far beyond the reach of even wealthy audiophiles. Observing the wide range of different equalizations of commercially made CDs, I wonder if the reason for this and the dislike by so many audiophiles for CDs is that studio speakers are no longer equalized for flat response even on axis anymore and we are listening to the particular FR of each speaker used to monitor CDs when they are mastered. That could explain it. Anyone familiar with current studio practice? Shortcommings in CDs themselves cannot explain it. The RBCD system easily exceeds the requirements of human hearing for accurate storage and retrieval of electrical signals that are analogs to music. That is easy to demonstrate both practically and theoretically.

[Carlspeak]

I watched an interesting show on the Ovation Channel yesterday. It was a video record of the recording sessions done last June at Legacy Recording Studios in NYC of Yo-Yo Ma & Friends (Sony Classical). Over a period of a few days Ma invited a number of notable recording artists to accompany him in the making of a compilation of songs sold around Christmass time last year.

As I watched the goings on, the camera's never ending movement gave me a glimps of a number of speakers scattered around the studio. I was surprised & impressed to see a B&W Matrix 801, what looked like a very large pair of Snells, wave guide monitors in the recording booth and even electrostatic panels. My impression is this studio has all these different types of speakers on hand (if needed) for playback in order to assess how the recording will sound over each. Obviously, I'm not sure of this, but what other reason would they have so many different types?

[soundminded]

I watched an interesting show on the Ovation Channel yesterday. It was a video record of the recording sessions done last June at Legacy Recording Studios in NYC of Yo-Yo Ma & Friends (Sony Classical). Over a period of a few days Ma invited a number of notable recording artists to accompany him in the making of a compilation of songs sold around Christmass time last year.

As I watched the goings on, the camera's never ending movement gave me a glimps of a number of speakers scattered around the studio. I was surprised & impressed to see a B&W Matrix 801, what looked like a very large pair of Snells, wave guide monitors in the recording booth and even electrostatic panels. My impression is this studio has all these different types of speakers on hand (if needed) for playback in order to assess how the recording will sound over each. Obviously, I'm not sure of this, but what other reason would they have so many different types?

"but what other reason would they have so many different types?"

Maybe it was the only way to settle the raging war among the engineers as to which one was best. The current crop of audio engineers seems to me to have come at least in part from the audiophile world. Your link to the talk they gave a few months ago was a fascinating insight into their mindset. Thanks Carl.

[genek]

That's one possible explanation I've discussed more than once here. Altec A-7 was a very popular monitor speaker for US recording companies. I think the British preferred Tannoy. I once ran into a Tannoy salesman who said they'd made their latest version of their Gold Monitor a little brighter to compete with Altec based on preferences of the American Market. As I recall, in the bad old days of phonograph records, recording studios would have their monitor speaker equalization tested with a calibrated microphone and tweaked once a week. The $900 per channel 1/3 octave Altec Acoustvoice was the equalizer of choice. Far beyond the reach of even wealthy audiophiles. Observing the wide range of different equalizations of commercially made CDs, I wonder if the reason for this and the dislike by so many audiophiles for CDs is that studio speakers are no longer equalized for flat response even on axis anymore and we are listening to the particular FR of each speaker used to monitor CDs when they are mastered.

I am reminded of a 1970's-era ad for ADC's line of speakers that featured a quote from an unidentified recording engineer who said that the monitors he used in the studio were designed to drill every fault in the recordings he was working on into his brain so that he wouldn't miss any even after long marathon sessions, and while they were useful tools in his work there was no way he'd ever use them to listen to music in his home. Naturally, the brand he preferred for that was...ADC.

My amplifier has tone controls and a tone defeat switch. When my listening was all LP or homebrewed tapes of my LPs, I hardly ever used either, just tuned the speakers with everything flat and I was fine 99% of the time. Since CDs came along, they've been the most used controls on the front panel. I still have the speakers set for the best sound (to my ears) with LPs witheverything flat, and anytime I play my old analogs I just push the defeat button. With different CDs the bass and treble controls are all over the place. If anyone ever comes out with a CD player that has a built-in graphic equalizer and can memorize and automatically recall EQ settings based on the disc title being played, I'm going to run out and get it the first day it goes on sale.

Beats me how the "golden ear" types who won't buy amps with tone controls survive in the digital age.