Some AR2ax measurements

[ar_pro]

I think Homer Simpson had found a way of incorporating a commode into his recliner, so this would be prior art.

Howard's point is very well-taken though - some people just like to argue, and who better to argue with than the converted?

But the notion that "Ad hominem" comes into play here is an invalid defense - when discussing objective *and* subjective aspects of a non-hypothetical, the background, opinions, training, preferences, and BIASES of an individual go far in separating the theoretician from the rhetorician.

In other words, if one shows no hesitancy in providing educational bona fides, or, as substantiation, mentioning their posts on similar subjects, then, in this case, their own listening habits (preferred equipment, conditions, etc.) are more than germane, and helpful in sussing out their take on things.

A true ad hominem attack will dismiss a position, idea, or opinion *because* of their holder's credentials (or lack, thereof), but it doesn't provide for a hidey-hole.

[Zilch]

I have to ask if you have a toilet built into your computer desk.

I am stunned, Howard.

Stunned that an "audio professional's" bag, that of a reviewer, no less, should have been so easily run out of gas as to be reduced to gratuitous ad hominem cliché.

Have you nothing more substantive to offer?

Can your subjectivist commitment to max dispersion be so irresolute?

In other words, if one shows no hesitancy in providing educational bona fides, or, as substantiation, mentioning their posts on similar subjects, then, in this case, their own listening habits (preferred equipment, conditions, etc.) are more than germane, and helpful in sussing out their take on things.

I have disclosed this in tens of thousands of posts showing hundreds of projects, which, if I may add parenthetically, evidences far more courage, and more substantial commitment, than these "critics" might ever imagine or themselves exhibit for all to see.

What I am "about" is easily ascertainable by anyone with a genuine interest in discovering this, yet far more complex than what would satisfy the mere idle curiosity apparent here.

Can we estimate what Voecks, or Timbers, or Geddes likes? I believe it is most evident in what they do, which is far more meaningful. It helps, of course, if people actually DO somewhat more than they blather.

[kkantor]

The artificially expanded apparent source width (ASW) which we all enjoy derives in its virtual entirely from first-order lateral reflections, not an imaginary reverberant field, and the second major element of spaciousness, listener envelopment (LEV) cannot be generated in small rooms other than via multi-channel simulation providing the requisite delays, your apparent area of expertise.

Zilch,

I would posit that most of the convincing research on this topic points to IACC, and the ITD and ILD components of the HRTF, as the determinants of ASW and LEV.

All kinds of factors will influence these things, including, but not limited to, both specular and defuse reflections.

BTW- many researchers have attempted to formulate some reasonably tractable set of measurements, conditions and procedures that will lead to the objectification of loudspeaker performance. Floyd's work in the area is excellent and legendary. There is other good work to consider, too, most notably, (in my opinion), several long-term studies and projects in Europe. A few of these are public and widely known in the industry. Others are more proprietary. The economics of the audio business, and the focus on perceptual coding as a topic for psychoacousticians, has taken the momentum out of this area of study, but it does persist.

-k

[Zilch]

I would posit that most of the convincing research on this topic points to IACC, and the ITD and ILD components of the HRTF, as the determinants of ASW and LEV.

HI Ken!

(Who kinda knows stuff about AR, folks. )

I'm headed for IACC next, if I can just get past constant directivity and the Toole bashing here.

[The Zilch bashing? Not so significant.... ]

[soundminded]

You are misinterpreting what I said. I did not say there were no reflections, rather, that the Beranek reverberant field, cornerstone and linchpin of Allison's analysis of AR3a design, does not exist in typical listening rooms.

At the time, both Bose and AR were singing the same reverberant field tune; by 1975, however, Holt knew more and better, and provided a modern analysis of what's actually going on, which Toole and other researchers refined over subsequent years into a cohesive synthesis of how loudspeakers and rooms interact:

http://www.stereophile.com/historical/425/index1.html

The artificially expanded apparent source width (ASW) which we all enjoy derives in its virtual entirely from first-order lateral reflections, not an imaginary reverberant field, and the second major element of spaciousness, listener envelopment (LEV) cannot be generated in small rooms other than via multi-channel simulation providing the requisite delays, your apparent area of expertise.

What we like about ARs is not what Villchur and Allison thought they were incorporating at the time, rather, an artifact of it, and with that understanding, we can very likely do it better, once we get past the erroneous assumption that they knew what they were doing. They didn't. There was no roadmap for their empirical innovations; they wrote the book, and some of it was apparently, if not now obviously, wrong....

The reverberent field in a small room is not imaginary, it is every bit as real as in a large room. The parameters are just different.

"The artificially expanded apparent source width (ASW) which we all enjoy derives in its virtual entirely from first-order lateral reflections, not an imaginary reverberant field, and the second major element of spaciousness, listener envelopment (LEV) cannot be generated in small rooms other than via multi-channel simulation providing the requisite delays, your apparent area of expertise."

In general this does take multichannel systems with electronically generated delays such as the system Howard Ferstler has shown us in his photographs. However, with certain speakers which deliberately generate early lateral reflections such as Bose 901 and presumably AR Magic 1? and those systems which create them inadvertently such as by using rear firing tweeters, on some program material this effect can be experienced because the delays are inherent in the recording itself. As I have said, although this may be paramount to many audiophiles it is of no interest to me. I usually sit in the cheap seats further back where the angle between the leftmost and rightmost musicians and my seat are +/-45 degrees or less. Sitting further back enables me to hear the hall reverberation better because the direct field is softer and therefore a smaller percentage of the total field. I said I'm a reverb freak and a fine concert hall is one of the ultimate reverberant environments.

Beranek and Toole both put great stock in low IACC. Beranek even defined Binaural Quality Index (BQI) as 1-IACC. It was his number one measurement which correlated to golden ear opinions of which of the 59 concert halls he compared was liked best. But I think at least Beranek may be wrong for his case anyway. If Beranek were right, how does he explain that when you sit along the center line of a symetrical concert hall and a soloist is playing at stage center such as in a piano recital, there is little or no appreciable difference than if you move to one side which would change IACC and therefore BQI drastically.

LEV is the result of the complex reverberant field whether generated acoustically in a large hall or electroacoustically in a small room. The equations that describe that field are and will remain proprietary for the forseeable future. Insofar as what is publically known, as far as I can tell, that knowledge is still beyond the state of the art.

HTRF is likely irrelevant. The entire theory of how direction of a source is determined by the human brain is at best incomplete, at worst just wrong. If it were right, binaural sound would work. The alternate theory expaining that will also remain proprietary because it directly relates to the equations describing the factors that create LEV.

[Zilch]

Sitting further back enables me to hear the hall reverberation better because the direct field is softer and therefore a smaller percentage of the total field.

Citing the Beranek model, Allison (1972) postulates that the reverberant field is dominant in small rooms as well, and that the critical distance with AR3as is very short owing to its max dispersion, on the order of 3 ft., and thus, at normal listening distances on the scale of 6 - 9 ft., the listener's perspective is well into the reverberant field.

My contention, again, is that the Beranek reverberant field does not exist in small rooms, that the direct SPL diminishes at a lesser rate than 6/dB per double distance, more like half that, and that the steady state necessary for the reverberant field to dominate over it is never developed. The hall is not reflective, rather, absorptive, and the longer delayed reflections which contribute to the reverberant field in larger halls instead attenuate in these smaller ones. We are not in a tiled shower here....

[genek]

My contention, again, is that the Beranek reverberant field does not exist in small rooms, that the direct SPL diminishes at a lesser rate than 6/dB per double distance, more like half that, and that the steady state necessary for the reverberant field to dominate over it is never developed.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the test setup for the measurements for this.

[soundminded]

Citing the Beranek model, Allison (1972) postulates that the reverberant field is dominant in small rooms as well, and that the critical distance with AR3as is very short owing to its max dispersion, on the order of 3 ft., and thus, at normal listening distances on the scale of 6 - 9 ft., the listener's perspective is well into the reverberant field.

My contention, again, is that the Beranek reverberant field does not exist in small rooms, that the direct SPL diminishes at a lesser rate than 6/dB per double distance, more like half that, and that the steady state necessary for the reverberant field to dominate over it is never developed. The hall is not reflective, rather, absorptive, and the longer delayed reflections which contribute to the reverberant field in larger halls instead attenuate in these smaller ones. We are not in a tiled shower here....

For a point source which is approximately what most high fidelity loudspeaker systems are, the direct field sound flux travels out from the source as on the surface of a sphere of increasing diameter. Therefore, at twice the distance, the flux density passing through the same solid angle will be one quarter as much. This equals a falloff of 6db. It's different for line sources and for sources that cover a large area such as a planar speaker. The rate of falloff is lower. I think for a line source, it's probably proportional to distance. This is typical of column speaker line source arrays commonly used in public address systems many years ago.

Got a link to Beranek's model?

[kkantor]

HTRF is likely irrelevant. The entire theory of how direction of a source is determined by the human brain is at best incomplete, at worst just wrong. If it were right, binaural sound would work. The alternate theory expaining that will also remain proprietary because it directly relates to the equations describing the factors that create LEV.

"Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more."

- Primitive and incomplete, no doubt. Wrong? I wouldn't say so. I find the cross-correlation models very plausible. EG-

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Jeffress_model

- "Binaural sound" works extremely well if you use the HRTF of target listener. Even when head movements are not modeled, a properly implemented binaural recording can be extraordinarily realistic. Once head movements are added, the results are very convincing indeed.

-k

[kkantor]

HI Ken!

(Who kinda knows stuff about AR, folks. )

I'm headed for IACC next, if I can just get past constant directivity and the Toole bashing here.

[The Zilch bashing? Not so significant.... ]

Thanks, Z.

I'd like to bring up a few points here that I personally think are critical to advancing this discussion past the technical and rhetorical dead end reached in the late 70's, or thereabout.

1- No playback system can be properly defined without first defining the recording process. Yet, this is the situation we find ourselves in. (Since you are familiar with Dr. Toole's earlier published work, you know that this indeterminacy is very much recognized and discussed in it.)

2- In the strictest mathematical sense, a loudspeaker cannot be defined by a transfer function. Its output signal is of a higher dimension, (and I am using this term in a rigorous way), than its input signal. Therefore, the loudspeaker >necessarily< adds information and, bottom line, all attempts to fully optimize it in terms of Bode Plots will ultimately fail.

3- Loudspeakers are complex products. A model's success in the marketplace, any segment of the marketplace, is a balance of factors far beyond even the very important issues currently being debated here. Loudspeaker design is completely an art of compromise and balance. This is true whether the goal is pure euphonics, some carefully chosen objective measurement portfolio, sales optimization, profit optimization, or any combination thereof.

Physical measurements are utterly critical in unraveling the performance puzzle, and allowing progress. But, they need to be considered very carefully with respect to their limitations, as is certainly the case with subjective listening.

-k

[Zilch]

I'm really looking forward to seeing the test setup for the measurements for this.

I proposed a primative experimental design to profile in-room propagation loss here:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...ost&p=78263

For AR3a, disconnect the woofer.

For a point source which is approximately what most high fidelity loudspeaker systems are, the direct field sound flux travels out from the source as on the surface of a sphere of increasing diameter. Therefore, at twice the distance, the flux density passing through the same solid angle will be one quarter as much. This equals a falloff of 6db. It's different for line sources and for sources that cover a large area such as a planar speaker. The rate of falloff is lower. I think for a line source, it's probably proportional to distance. This is typical of column speaker line source arrays commonly used in public address systems many years ago.

Yes, in anechoic spaces. However, in-room:

Considering the distances at which we listen in our intertainment spaces and control rooms, it is clear that we are in the transitional region, where the direct and early-reflected sounds dominate and late-reflected sounds are subdued and progressively attenuated with distance. The sound field is not diffuse, and there is no critical distance, as classically defined. If we were to speculate at this early stage about loudspeaker performance in these rooms, it would seem that a combination of direct and early-reflected sounds would figure prominently in their potential sound quality and that sound power would not be the dominant factor.

Allison says sound power rules, unequivocally; it is the cornerstone (and linchpin) of AR3a design.

It'd be a lot easier if you just got the book at the library and read it, frankly.

********

Got a link to Beranek's model?

It's in Allison (1972), from Beranek Acoustics p. 318 (1954) but I'm Googling to avoid having to do another scan from the paper....

[Shacky]

What does his taste in equipment have to do with pointing out technical

flaws in a design and defending his position? Obvioulsy, you're hoping

to attack him based on his taste which has nothing to do with the facts.

Surely you are aware that this is not allowed in the rules of debate.

Pete,

When Zilch mixes subjective comments and generalizations to his technical flaw highlights, it opens the discussion up to more than the facts he's presenting. I guess I can see how you would assume my intention of asking for his "taste" of preference information may appear fodder for attack. I'm attacking him becasue he goes round in round in circles making judgements based on his "science" yet won't go on record with his listening preferences. A major factor in the vast majority of threads here at CSP.

I'll leave it to others to poke holes in his facts. I am convinced based both on the fervor and structure of his arguements that there are untold biases/motivations behind them.

OK let's try another non-audio theory analogy. Bakc to my '62 Vette story. There are those that love driving a '62 Vette for the pure unadulterated power and uniqueness of the experience. One could easily point out that a stock '62 Vette is "flawed" in many ways to a newer more technologically advanced sports car - even a 2009 Vette.

But there is a joy to that feeling of driving a '62 Vette that can only be experienced by actually driving it. Those that enjoy driving it love to learn more about what makes the '62 Vette experience unique.

Then someone comes along and takes significant snipes at the '62 Vette. Even promoting cutting up the '62 Vette and shoving in Ford Focus suspension parts becasue they are "better" than the original '62 Vettes. When asked do you prefer driving the original '62 Vette or the new pimped out model, he demurs and points to all the improved specs on the pimped out model and flaws of the original. Stnading behing those specs saying the experience does not matter - and if you really want to know my preference - here read through these 20,000 posted spread all over the internet and it will be clear as a bell.

If one doesn't like or appreciate the driving experience of the '62 Vette, one is never going to comprehend what it is that folks who cherish that experience are talking about. And why they would be so fanatical about maintaining that unique experience.

Then there's the always present possibility of ulterior motives. Does this person sell the Ford Focus replacement parts he so vigorously promotes? Or his brother of friend who's in the business. Or is he someone who just loves to prove he's on the same level as those who are much advanced than he in the study of theory? The old inferiority complex punching back to knock others off their well earned stations. I for one and I sense others too smell an ulterior motive.

I've obviously put a wedge between me and Zilch in my process of asking him to come forward with his listening preferences and to acknowledge that the most important factor is the listneing experience - not the well intentioned but woefully inadequate scientific approach to define that listening experience. I'm reminded of Star Trek and the Borg. You will assimilate. Resistance is futile.

I respect those that do the science to explain, define, and improve this hobby. And Zilch has done much to that end here and elsewhere. But it doesn't mean $$%% to a King if it promotes that the listening experience is somehow subjugated to that science.

[genek]

When Zilch mixes subjective comments and generalizations to his technical flaw highlights, it opens the discussion up to more than the facts he's presenting.

I think Zilch's "subjective comments and generalizations" probably exist as much in the minds of those who read their own into them. What exactly are they?

1. Classic ARs don't meet contemporary consumer preferences.

Well duh. Excuse me, I mean DUH.. A product that was discontinued by its original manufacturer 35 years ago doesn't meet contemporary consumer preferences? It probably didn't meet 1974 consumer preferences, at least not profitably, or it would still be in production like my 1955 Eames lounge chair. Other products that fall into this same category would include the Pioneer HPM-100, JBL Ranger Paragon and the 1962 Corvette. Anyone who this isn't patently obvious to should probably be sitting in a corner somewhere repeatedly beating himself over the head with a baseball bat.

2. The original design goals of classic ARs can be met or exceeded using contemporary technology.

I would think that anyone who believes this enough to try doing it should be encouraged, not dumped on. It's not as if the current owners of the brand are making any effort to meet these goals, or to support older products with satisfactory replacements. And it should not be necessary for a competent designer of anything to actually like something to able to characterize and reverse-engineer it.

3. The historical theories and principles the classic AR designs were based on were invalid.

This arguement has made for some interesting discussion, most of which goes right over my head and none of which does anything to change the way my speakers sound or improve their longevity.

IMO, everybody who has the ability should be concentrating their time and energy on #2. Especially if they have something they'd like to sell. My speakers may not be deteriorating, but they certainly are not getting any younger.

[kkantor]

Yes, in anechoic spaces. However, in-room:

Allison says sound power rules, unequivocally; it is the cornerstone (and linchpin) of AR3a design.

Zilch,

I've been with you so far, but I have to correct one thing you said, above. Sound power didn't "rule" the AR-3a's design, although it was generally important, and was always tested. Some anecdotes, which I can expand when time permits, if you wish:

1- I don't know if you know this, but I undertook a revisit of the 3a several years ago. (At the time, I was Corporate VP of Technology for International Jensen, Inc., and we owned both Advent and AR.) It was a well-funded project, and I had access to all remaining AR records and facilities, designed the drivers from scratch, etc. The project was kicked off with months of face-to-face and phone discussions with both EV and HK. (I am proud to say, I even got them to a mutual dinner.... a very memorable evening!) Independently, and very quickly in the initial discussions, they disabused me of the notion that I could or should optimize power response. In fact, the AR methods turned out to be a bit more sophisticated, doing things like tailoring power or axial response in regions where they just couldn't get directivity where they wanted, time-gated measurements, weighted spatial averaging, etc. I can't summarize many hours of discussions, napkin sketches, etc., here. But, I can say that they both had a fairly sophisticated view of the role of power response.

(SPS- The best 3a's I could find where analyzed using the best tools at my disposal my a dedicated development team of, if I remember correctly, 5 engineers. So, I am absorbing your measurements with interest.)

2- For various reasons, Roy Allison was not part of this particular project. But, I have talked to him over the years, and will be happy to see if he wants to share his thoughts. (Many pros find internet forums to be filled with people not interested in the kind of discourse and flexible back-and-forth dialog that one finds in other settings, and so avoid them.) Probably, I have talked Berkovitz about these ideas more than anyone.... easily hundreds of hours. In the late 70's and early 80's, he was working on the ADSP, which brought issues of measurement and optimization into sharp relief, as you can imagine. (We carpooled together, and the amount discussion of this stuff would have probably killed most people trapped in the car during a snowy commute.) If I remember correctly, it was during this time, 78?, that Dr. Toole flew down to visit our lab, and I met him for the first time.

(I have also discussed/debated the issue several times with Dr. Bose, as I was a student of his, and did some small work projects for him, also.)

Anyway, sorry for the reverie... I haven't thought about those years in a while ... but to return to my point: the 3a was not Power Respone Uber Alles.

-k

[genek]

Some anecdotes, which I can expand when time permits, if you wish:

EV and HK. (I am proud to say, I even got them to a mutual dinner.... a very memorable evening!)

I definitely want to see this one expanded...!

[Zilch]

I think Zilch's "subjective comments and generalizations" probably exist as much in the minds of those who read their own into them. What exactly are they?

The same issue was raised in another forum, and when challenged to provide citations, the worst that was found were "compromised" response of one of my AR3a tweeters in comparison to the other, and "disingenuous" with respect to AR publishing individual driver anechoic responses, not even mounted in the cabs, for consumers to compare to the full-system response of competitors.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthrea...568#post2625568

Shacky and others, apparently, consider anyone actually doing an objective evaluation of these speakers (I could say, "40-year-old relics," but for the flood of condemnation that would surely ensue,) as an insult to their personal tastes and sensibilities. Why would anyone do this, and worse yet, post it here for all to see, but to validate their own preferences, when clearly, there is nothing to know beyond whether we (and they) like them or not?

The "Why," is key, and the subjectivist's perspective itself precludes their appreciating any value or purpose to this endeavor.

What they also do not appreciate is that in generalizing from their own personal preferences that there has been no progress in loudspeaker design or improvement in performance in 40 years, they insult everyone who seeks, or has ever sought, an understanding of elements more fundamental than who likes what.

Obviously, even in this thread, I am not alone in this view, rather, merely the vector, and some here are having difficulty reconciling their own (I could say "simplistic" here, but that would evidence a bias and add further insult,) viewpoint with the apparent fact that Speaker Dave, Pete B., Ken Kantor, Carl, Jerry, and many other CSP members share an interest in ARs which reaches and extends far beyond whether Shacky or anyone else likes them or not, and the irony is, when anything goes awry, it's those conversant with the facts who are called upon for assistance....

[genek]

The "Why," is key, and the subjectivist perspective itself precludes their appreciating any value or purpose to this endeavor.

You helped set yourself up for that by mixing evaluations and conclusions in with data collection instead of holding off until the dataset was complete. At worst it opens you up to assmptions that you are cherry-picking, and at best opens the door for others to do what they conclude you are doing even if they are mistaken. I learned that in "Test Engineering 101."

[Zilch]

I've been with you so far, but I have to correct one thing you said, above. Sound power didn't "rule" the AR-3a's design, although it was generally important, and was always tested.

I overstate it, primarily to highlight the fundamental conflict between Allison's perspective as disclosed in the 1970, 72 AES papers (to which some wagons here are apparently hitched,) and Toole's more contemporary view. As should be apparent, I believe there is some mileage yet to accrue from pursuit of the implications.

The 3a was not Power Respone Uber Alles.

Clearly, you are privy to a universe of more detailed information and insight than is possible to glean from what is documented and readily available in the CSP library, but even here, there are indications of more afoot, as example, in the allowance for the mid and tweeter responses to overlap in support of each other more than prudent design practice would recommend.

The best 3a's I could find where analyzed using the best tools at my disposal my a dedicated development team of, if I remember correctly, 5 engineers. So, I am absorbing your measurements with interest.

And do you find my measurements and findings consistent with the more comprehensive work you and your team performed?

I am not a student of AR3a or AR in general; my purpose was to verify RoyC's L-pad substitution via in situ measurements. However, even the most rudimentary assessment reveals issues worthy of discussion and pursuit, in my view....

[Zilch]

You helped set yourself up for that by mixing evaluations and conclusions in with data collection instead of holding off until the dataset was complete.

What evaluations? What conclusions?

Allison himself stated and showed that the polars were a mess, then followed up with a thesis as to why that was inconsequential. Howard asserted that all speakers measure like that, and nothing else is possible, hence the debate.

I'm supposed to post the data and leave it at that, not explaining what it means, to me, at least, as some here suggest?

Few here were even aware of the Allison data before I posted it. So kick me for bringing it forward for analysis and discussion? For deigning to suggest that there is evidence which might conflict with anyone's perceptions of AR reality?

[genek]

What evaluations? What conclusions?

Comparing the early measurements to "contemporary listener preferences" and diving headfirst into debate over Toole and others before finishing the measurements, for one. For another, flatly declaring that whatever the 3a did can be done better with new tech when it's fairly clear from the debate that there is still not a consensus on exactly what the speaker did in the first place and that you haven't conducted the necessary experiments to confirm the hypothesis.

The rest was all wonderful, it's the timing that was ill-advised. Or did I just miss the post where you finished restoring the pots and then redid your system measurements? There has been a lot of activity going on in these threads, and I do have something that more or less resembles a life.

http://scifiles.larc.nasa.gov/text/kids/Re...fic_method.html

http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/folicacid/excite...ific_method.htm

Note where in the timeline the reporting of results occurs. Especially important when you know your audience is not all technically adept.

[Zilch]

Comparing the early measurements to "contemporary listener preferences" and diving headfirst into debate over Toole and others before finishing the measurements, for one. For another, flatly declaring that whatever the 3a did can be done better with new tech when it's fairly clear from the debate that there is still not a consensus on exactly what the speaker did in the first place and that you haven't conducted the necessary experiments to confirm the hypothesis.

That's the disconnect here; there is no hypothesis and it's not an experiment to prove anything. There's data and discussion of what it might mean.

Do I have hypotheses? Yup, plenty of them.

You want experiment? Buy some marshmallows and put batteries in your SPL meter....

[genek]

That's the disconnect here; there is no hypothesis and it's not an experiment to prove anything. There's data and discussion of what it might mean.

Your declaration that the performance of the 3a can be equalled or bettered with modern technology, especially with different modern technology, is either an hypothesis (if you intend to demonstrate it) or an assumption (if you do not intend to demonstrate it).

The rest is certainly a discussion of what data might mean. Some of it has been extremely useful and informative (for example, comparing the raw driver measurements to those previously published by AR and the system measurements to those previously produced by Allison). The rest has been sufficiently over my head that it's mostly between you and a few others with a lot more knowledge of the subject than I have, though it has been somewhat enlightening to discover that most of the disagreements I read about 40 years ago have still not reached a consensus.

I only conduct my own experiments if somebody pays me to do it. Or if I really need a new tweeter.

[Zilch]

I only conduct my own experiments if somebody pays me to do it. Or if I really need a new tweeter.

HUH? Watching the dog try to eat the line of marshmallows is not sufficient compensation?

[genek]

HUH? Watching the dog try to eat the line of marshmallows is not sufficient compensation?

We have cats. You don't want to be around cats after they eat things with sugar in them.

[Shacky]

Shacky and others, apparently, consider anyone actually doing an objective evaluation of these speakers (I could say, "40-year-old relics," but for the flood of condemnation that would surely ensue,) as an insult to their personal tastes and sensibilities. Why would anyone do this, and worse yet, post it here for all to see, but to validate their own preferences, when clearly, there is nothing to know beyond whether we (and they) like them or not?

The "Why," is key, and the subjectivist's perspective itself precludes their appreciating any value or purpose to this endeavor.

What they also do not appreciate is that in generalizing from their own personal preferences that there has been no progress in loudspeaker design or improvement in performance in 40 years, they insult everyone who seeks, or has ever sought, an understanding of elements more fundamental than who likes what.

I never said there is no progress in speaker design or performance, Or that other speakers don't out perform the AR 3a in many respects.

Only that you seem to be missing an opportunity to try and define what is so uniquely GOOD with the AR 2AX or 3a. I don't have to know more about the science and theory to see that your process misses this critical point of all the folks who keep telling you they prefer AR's for their unique "musicality". And it appears to be because you ignore the qualities that make these original AR's so good and choose to focus instead on their flaws.

I keep asking you what your impression is of the AR sound with youe favorite music and in your listening space. You say I (or anyone else) need not jnow that (or need to spend as much time on th internet as you to find out) and we are only asking for this information so we can drag your name through the proverbial internet mud once you go on record.

All I want to know is do you (can you) appreciate the unique sound of the AR"s so you'll be able to chase it with your science. If all you can do is compare it to your econo-wave gold standard then I'm not very interested in your work.