Stereophile Review of AR3a...

[Pete B]

- It is clear from my post, but not your quotation of my post, that it was a ubiquitous problem, and not in any way specific to AR.

- Your choice of the term "admitting it" implies that I denied it, or felt some internal resistance about sharing it, and was culpable in it. Since that is obviously not the case, and I brought the whole matter up entirely voluntarily to illustrate a point, I find your terminology strangely accusatory. If I am off base, I apologize. If I am correct, please direct your anxieties elsewhere.

- Hmmm, so you delight in rocking the boat with investigative journalism and challenging theses on many subjects, but you didn't want to even mention your exposure to a practice that was widespread at the time, because of the expected response here? Am I understanding this right?

-k

No, you read into my post incorrectly. Good that you apologized in advance.

I'm not so naive to believe it would be just AR, and I used the terminology

because I never expected to hear it from a past officer of the compnay, that's

all - nothing more. No, I get no thrill at all in rocking the boat, indeed it is easy to

see that my posts are mostly technical. I actually find the pissing contests annoying

and a waste of time. Also, my information related to speaker companies is second

hand, I've certainly seen it first hand in other companies.

[kkantor]

No, you read into my post incorrectly. Good that you apologized in advance.

I'm not so naive to believe it would be just AR, and I used the terminology

because I never expected to hear it from a past officer of the compnay, that's

all - nothing more. No, I get no thrill at all in rocking the boat, indeed it is easy to

see that my posts are mostly technical. I actually find the pissing contests annoying

and a waste of time. Also, my information related to speaker companies is second

hand, I've certainly seen it first hand in other companies.

Thanks for the clarification, and sorry for misconstruing your words.

-k

[kkantor]

None. If I don't like them at least a little in the showroom, things are unlikely to get any better at home.

The last "new" speaker I home trialed was a pair of AR-303's more than 10 years ago. I liked the sound well enough, but for some reason the only ones available were the black laminate model and I just couldn't bring myself to pull the trigger on speakers in fake wood cabinets. I actually toyed momentarily with the idea of buying them anyway, then pulling the drivers and having a cabinet maker peel off the laminate and veneer them. Maybe I should have, but who knew it was going to be the last time I'd hear something I wanted to try at home? I learned much later and too late that there had been a version in real wood. Rosewood. Drat.

Ultimately, our choices in life tend to be severely limited by our preferences.

Wow, I forgot those were even made in black. Must have been a special order for studios, a show or a particular distributor.

Thanks,

-k

[genek]

I know what people are going to say. You heard a lot of lousy equipment. You should have been listening to brand XXXXX, model YYYYY, then you would have heard something. Mid-fi is the other guy's expensive audio equipment you don't like. That thought struck me when a guy who owned Magneplanar Tympany IV told me my AR9s were mid-fi. Are they? Of course not. Compared to hearing real music, the are all Lo-fi

I would guess that my audio standards are considerably lower than yours, as are my expectations. "Hifi" is a relative term for me, because if "hi" means "close enough to fool the listener," I know that's just not going to happen in my living room no matter how much money I put into my sound system. What I'm looking for is sound that enables me to call up memories of the "feel" of live performances from inside my head, without "audio cold showers" that ruin my ability to do that. Chief among these are 1) booming lows, 2) screaming highs, and 3) virtual sound sources that don't stay put if I turn my head or get up from my seat. 1 and 2 are not necessarily fatal flaws, because unlike some audiophiles, I have and use tone controls, but 3 has been the killer. I don't have the kind of hearing that can detect or recognize a "peak" or a "suckout" that goes beyond the standard "+- 3dB" in most FR specs and I didn't pay enough attention to where the musicians originally were to be able to tell that the virtual violinists are 10 ft too far to one side or the other, but I sure as hell can tell when everybody seems to be moving across the room just because I needed a drink refill.

The other requirement I don't see mentioned much is appearance. This may seem terribly non-audiphile, but the damned things have to look good in my living room. For me that means no dayglo colors, no plastic imitation wood or leather sufaces, no LED light shows and no shapes that look like a droid army from Star Wars has invaded my home.

Performance-wise, I would think it shouldn't be that hard to meet my needs, but since my evaluation of any total package is probably two thirds subjective/visceral response, maybe that part is just insurmountable unless somebody starts custom outfitting the darned things like yachts.

[oldguide]

Apologies...

I had been away from this thread for a bit and was astonished to find out where it has gone. kkantor is right. So I will start the apologies with my own. My intent was to call into question the value of the comparison. I believe the questions I raised are still valid. I wish the author had contacted some of the old hands around here who would have been glad to enlighten him about the quirks of ARs and probably supplied the needed speaker. It would not have taken much time or effort.

I have two of the three speakers being tested and frankly they are a different breed of cat that require different care and feeding.

However, my cracks about journalism strayed over the line. Whatever my thoughts about the journalism of Stereophile or the author, they belong on another board or in another place. Let's just say they came from another side of my life that does not belong on this board.

I have been an avid fan of this board because it is a place where we can have discussions and disagreements about speakers and speaker design without getting personal. I am somewhat dismayed about some recent threads--and posters--who have moved away from this.

Curiously, even as Stereophile is running this comparison, I sense a very healthy internal debate going on about mods, upgrades, replacements being spurred by the testing Roy and others are doing with replacements for tweeters and mids. I was going to post something on that, but now is probably not the time for it.

Thanks to Ken for yet again showing us the light.

[Steve F]

"I don't think the relative appeal of Advents vs ARs was altogether accidental. When I was shopping for my speakers, it occurred to me at the time that the Advent ads seemed aimed at buyers in their teens and 20's while AR's ads never really changed from the "white paper with figures" style originated by EV until way into the late-Teledyne period. Definitely aimed at an older, classical-music-preferring crowd."

You are exactly correct. As I wrote in a Dec '02 post:

"Advent’s marketing, advertising, and sales policies were just as instrumental to its success as anything else. The first decision Advent made was that they would only sell the speaker to quality dealers that could properly display and demonstrate the product. They had sort of an unwritten policy of “never less than no.2.” This meant that they wanted—and received—from their dealers a commitment that the Advent line would be AT LEAST the no. 2 speaker line in the store, most often the no. 1 line. In return, Advent guaranteed their dealers that the Advent line would only be selectively distributed (not every dealer on the block would have the line), and the line would follow a “fair trade” policy, whereby dealers would sell the product at agreed-to prices. The Large Advent “Utility” in walnut vinyl was $102 ea; the genuine walnut was $116 ea. The dealers’ profitability with the line was thus assured.

Advent also put considerable effort into creating advertising and literature that emphasized the “homey-folksy-aren’t-we-such-a-cool-company-that-gets-it” impression. If you read Advent material from those days, it had tremendous appeal to the waves of young, college-age baby boomers who were starting to buy stereo equipment by the truckload. “Be sure to Hear the Advents.” It was a great campaign, and it really spoke to its target audience.

AR, in contrast, did everything they could do to sabotage their own sales. They had built their market share in the 50’s through mid-60’s to an astounding 33% by some estimates, but they completely misread the coming changes in the market and resulting shift in buyer demographics. AR’s advertising and literature, from the inception of the company, was based on a clear, logical presentation of their engineering prowess. Acoustic suspension. The dome tweeter. Accurate response curves, all with “third party” testimonials by credible spokespeople, like Louis Armstrong, Herbert von Karajan, Don Ellis, and Woody Herman. This was not the approach that grabbed the attention, fired the imagination, excited the passions of the 19-year old college kid in 1969. Herbert von Karajan??!! While AR was still taking the staid, conservative tack and appealing mainly to middle-aged engineers who listened to classical music, Advent was out actively courting—and winning—the minds and buying dollars of a new generation. AR was “your father’s speaker,” paired with an old Fisher tube receiver. The Advent was today’s product, for a new generation, with a hip, relaxed, with-it attitude."

I also agree with you completely about hi-fi equipment needing to look good and fit appropriately into an adult's home decor. All my equipment looks very nice (as well as sounding good) and they compliment the room they're in. The "dorm room/hobby room" look for me is over, years ago, never to return.

As far as reproducing the sound of musicians/instruments in my room or transporting me to a different venue, I'll repeat what I said a few days ago (and here also, it appears we're in substantial agreement):

"Playing music at home on a system is akin to watching a recorded replay of a game that you’ve already seen. Once you play the album, you know the ‘outcome.’ The immediacy, the surprise, the tension of ‘how’s it going to come out’ is over. You already know the final score, so to speak. So, no, for me listening at home, I’m not trying to get the system to ‘fool’ me into thinking I’m at The Jazz Workshop. I know I’m not. Nor am I trying to get the system to ‘trick’ me into thinking that Horace Silver’s quintet is in my living room. I know they’re not.

I’m simply looking for the system to deliver the music I enjoy and to do a reasonable job of portraying the various instruments in what strikes me as a tonally-accurate facsimile of what I recall those instruments to sound like. And to reveal enough inner detail (the bass drum pedal squeaking, for example) so that on occasion, I smile and think, “Hey, how ‘bout that!” Or enough low-bass impact that my wife tells me to turn it down.

3a’s and 11’s do that nicely, for me, to my taste. I can go on and on about their technical strengths and shortcomings (as well as the validity/invalidity of their designers’ and proponents’ assumptions) as well as anyone here. I know all the pluses and minuses. I know what I believe, I know how my positions stack up within the continuum of thought that’s out there, and I know how closely most people cling to their positions (including me, in perfect candor)."

That's all for now.

Steve F.

[genek]

This was not the approach that grabbed the attention, fired the imagination, excited the passions of the 19-year old college kid in 1969. Herbert von Karajan??!! While AR was still taking the staid, conservative tack and appealing mainly to middle-aged engineers who listened to classical music, Advent was out actively courting—and winning—the minds and buying dollars of a new generation. AR was “your father’s speaker,” paired with an old Fisher tube receiver. The Advent was today’s product, for a new generation, with a hip, relaxed, with-it attitude."

Which pretty much explains why I bought ARs. I wasn't particularly hip, relaxed or with-it when I was in my early 20's, and spent most of my time working and hanging out with middle-aged engineers. If I was going to be influenced by anybody's endorsements, Armstrong, von Karajan, Ellis and Herman would have done it better for me than any rocker.

I know all the pluses and minuses. I know what I believe, I know how my positions stack up within the continuum of thought that’s out there, and I know how closely most people cling to their positions (including me, in perfect candor)."

Amen. I really don't think my tastes have changed much at all in the past 30 years or so. The only real difference is the size of my budget, and the most frustrating thing about my current point in life is that I can finally afford to buy what I like, but seldom see anything I like enough to want to buy. So except for a new and faster computer every 3-4 years, all I ever seem to spend money on is maintaing what I have and trying to replace what can no longer be maintained with new things that come as close as possible to the old ones. My wife, ever wiser than I, says I should just consider that "contentment" and sit back and enjoy it.

[rl1856]

PBr, I for one applaud your desire to get it right. Even though the test pair of 3a speakers were considered to be working to spec by a proffessional, you still want to sure. From that and your brief comments, I take it that the sound of the speakers under test did not meet your expectations. I hope that after the article is published you can let us know what led to your reservations.

I read your previous vintage articles with great interest and I also recall the associated debates. There were legitimate questions raised about the condition of the preamp and phono sections of the 500c for example. We know that caps and resistors deteriorate and wire becomes brittle over time etc. The delicate balanceing act is to determine at what point age has affected realistic performance even if measurements are to original spec.

For the 3a pair that was tested, were they cloth suspension or foam ? What was the condition of the level pots ? Were the drivers original to the speakers or later replacements (the later questions is applicable to the Advents and Dynacos).

I guess the best we can hope for is that all variables were eliminated.....but with speakers 30-40yrs old the variables are very much moving targets.

Thank you for taking on this task.

Best,

Ross

[Zilch]

At least one of them believes that 0.1 dB comment about graphic equalizer use, which is moronic.

I DO suspect it would be difficult to hear in a reverberant field....

[soundminded]

Right on! I put the point of wildly diminishing returns for a pair of speakers beginning at about 5 grand, or maybe 7 grand. For that kind of money you should be able to get the best, period, with any additional funds a waste of one's financial resources.

Howard Ferstler

Who said anything about diminishing returns. I'm a no compromise sort of person. I'll put my re-engineered equipment up against anyone's. It was cheaper to figure out what was wrong with existing equipment than to start from scratch. Even if I'd had no technical knowledge at all, I'd still have had a huge advantage over these other people, I know something about music, musical instruments, and I especially know how to listen. Look at how not one person was able to cite even one of the four elements of music on the thread about AR2ax measurements. But I have had an excellent education and I love solving puzzles. This has been nothing more than one more technical puzzle for me. And look at the other advantages I've had. I had all of the intellectual tools to solve this problem without having been dragged down the same mental rut the "experts" had by being forced to see the problem through other people's eyes first. I had to figure it out for myself from scratch. That gave me much wider lattitude to come up with an entirely different analysis and a different solution. That's what a paradigm is really about, not just solution to a problem but the way you define and view the problem at its most basic elements. I took nothing for granted. Impossible? Look at where all their money and technobabble has gotten them. You were right Genek, my standards are much higher than yours. I expect to be able to solve this problem of making machines sound like real music...and for all you know I already have.

Just because equipment is expensive, doesn't mean it isn't badly flawed. And unlike some people who say that design is a compromise, a balance of different tradeoffs, I don't see it that way at all. I also have no deadlines to meet. If I set a goal, it doesn't matter whether it takes me six days, six weeks or six years to achieve it. It took four years to re-engineer Bose 901 and I knew before I started what I had to do. Nobody stands over me reminding me how much time I have left before my work is due. That's reserved for my day job.

[genek]

You were right Genek, my standards are much higher than yours. I expect to be able to solve this problem of making machines sound like real music...and for all you know I already have.

That's good to hear, because the state of the art is obviously not going to advance as a result of anything I'm doing with my audio gear.

Let me know if you ever get something into production and I will be there for the demo. That's a promise.

[Shacky]

I can't say that my notes regarding Advents are all that positive, my conclusion being that they are most popular because they look nice and can be acquired for peanuts, or less....

Imagine that

[Shacky]

For those of you that don't know me as Jim, I spoke with Peter and will run my AR 3a's down to him for the Stereophile project. They were in great shape when I picked them up from original owner - thanks to Onplane giving me deads up - last year. I had Carl refoam them - replacing the spacer ring I incorrectly removed thinking they were readily available. I recapped with Daytons on low end Solens on top. Al original values. Replaced AP pots with 15 Ohm Memcors.

Only mod I made was pulling out separate ground for woofer to allow true biamp option. I did this for two reasons:

As a tribute to Onplane's generosity in sending me the CL here in Rochester

My desire to have tubes on top, SS on bottom end which I've yet to set up - I need to compensate for my Fisher console tube amp's higher gain.

With separate ground terminal jumpered, they are bone stock. I resused the rock wool damping material.

The tweeters on this pair are in great shape - as Onplane can attest. So I think they'll make a good example of stock 3a's for Peter's project. And I'll be very interested in outcome. Even though it could never persuade me to change how much I love my music through these gems.

Here's my thread on the resto:

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthrea...ght=restoration

[soundminded]

For those of you that don't know me as Jim, I spoke with Peter and will run my AR 3a's down to him for the Stereophile project. They were in great shape when I picked them up from original owner - thanks to Onplane giving me deads up - last year. I had Carl refoam them - replacing the spacer ring I incorrectly removed thinking they were readily available. I recapped with Daytons on low end Solens on top. Al original values. Replaced AP pots with 15 Ohm Memcors.

Only mod I made was pulling out separate ground for woofer to allow true biamp option. I did this for two reasons:

As a tribute to Onplane's generosity in sending me the CL here in Rochester

My desire to have tubes on top, SS on bottom end which I've yet to set up - I need to compensate for my Fisher console tube amp's higher gain.

With separate ground terminal jumpered, they are bone stock. I resused the rock wool damping material.

The tweeters on this pair are in great shape - as Onplane can attest. So I think they'll make a good example of stock 3a's for Peter's project. And I'll be very interested in outcome. Even though it could never persuade me to change how much I love my music through these gems.

Here's my thread on the resto:

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthrea...ght=restoration

Of course, how could I have missed it? "I called Peter." "I called Floyd." "I called Earl." What a tight little clique there is in this business. That explains an awful lot. It's even worse than I ever thought. Howard, you don't stand a chance in the world. You're not part of "the IN crowd." Right or wrong, your views not only don't make these people any money, if anyone listened to you, it would cost them a whole bundle. Gee Tom, any remaining doubts as to WHY this industry is dead? Why there hasn't been an original thought or idea in over 30 years? Politics is politics, whether in Washington DC, the office you work in, or in the high end consumer audio business. It's about the money stupid. Duh!

[Carlspeak]

Why do we conclude that Advent beat AR in this, or that there was even a comparison in these terms?

I can't say that my notes regarding Advents are all that positive, my conclusion being that they are most popular because they look nice and can be acquired for peanuts, or less....

I see no reason to get all worked up over this upcoming article. It's only 3 people giving an opinion on the performance of 3 vintage loudspeakers, the condition of which will be questioned and debated long after the article is published.

It DOESN'T matter. Why? The sample size is too small. JA's measurements will be interesting to see, but only in the context that they are probably done with better instrumentation and more controlled than any we could do and, they hopefully are on a par as a basis of comparison of these classics with numerous others he's tested.

What matters is what you see when you look at the "Topics" and "Replies" columns in the CSP discussion forums. Look at the disparity in the hundreds of posts and thousands of views (by hundreds and hundreds of members and visitors) amongst the various brands.

Now that's a more meaningful sample size to draw conclusions from regarding listener preferences.

[Shacky]

Of course, how could I have missed it? "I called Peter." "I called Floyd." "I called Earl." What a tight little clique there is in this business. That explains an awful lot. It's even worse than I ever thought. Howard, you don't stand a chance in the world. You're not part of "the IN crowd." Right or wrong, your views not only don't make these people any money, if anyone listened to you, it would cost them a whole bundle. Gee Tom, any remaining doubts as to WHY this industry is dead? Why there hasn't been an original thought or idea in over 30 years? Politics is politics, whether in Washington DC, the office you work in, or in the high end consumer audio business. It's about the money stupid. Duh!

I don't know Peter at all. I just picked up this thread and called his number - posted at beginning of this thread. There's no clique going on. I figured if I can get a well set up pair of 3a's to Peter for this project all the better for getting as accurate information as possible on record.

[Zilch]

Of course, how could I have missed it? "I called Peter." "I called Floyd." "I called Earl." What a tight little clique there is in this business.

There's at least a dozen more major players, all of whom distinguish themselves by actually DOing stuff, and doing it successfully.

It's about the money stupid. Duh!

Oh yah, as if that's not a major factor here.

If it truly IS about the music, then why should anyone give a flying whit what Stereophile says?

If we're really SURE we are right, that's all that matters, no...?

[kkantor]

Of course, how could I have missed it? "I called Peter." "I called Floyd." "I called Earl." What a tight little clique there is in this business. That explains an awful lot. It's even worse than I ever thought. Howard, you don't stand a chance in the world. You're not part of "the IN crowd." Right or wrong, your views not only don't make these people any money, if anyone listened to you, it would cost them a whole bundle. Gee Tom, any remaining doubts as to WHY this industry is dead? Why there hasn't been an original thought or idea in over 30 years? Politics is politics, whether in Washington DC, the office you work in, or in the high end consumer audio business. It's about the money stupid. Duh!

1- Yes! It's all about the money! Audio. and high end loudspeakers in particular, is a business where money flows and fortunes can be made. So, of course, even the best and brightest are attracted and corrupted.

2- One small bright spot... Howard is a friend and over the past several years, we've talked at great length. I'm almost ready to induct him into our secret society, but he is waffling about the pinna removal hazing ritual.

-k

PS- the depth of The Clique's infiltration is more, far more, than almost anyone knows. For example, every speaker driver you own that was made in the last 25 years contains a small uTransmiter. A full log of everything you listen to, and the equalization and signal processing applied, has been logged at a secret location, via satellite. Even more troubling: some of the the more modern drivers actually store energy when they are played (thus their low efficiency), and are capable of sensing and transmitting voices in the listening room for several hours after the system is turned off. You don't even want to know about some of the other things I could tell you. Ever hear of the "Eyeball" tweeter? Well, let's just say a lot of hotels bought them. You can thank The Clique for what you know about Paris Hilton's anatomy, but that's just the tips of the icebergs.

I will probably be tortured and killed for saying this. But, I will probably be tortured and killed even if I don't.

[kkantor]

"Playing music at home on a system is akin to watching a recorded replay of a game that you’ve already seen. Once you play the album, you know the ‘outcome.’ The immediacy, the surprise, the tension of ‘how’s it going to come out’ is over. You already know the final score, so to speak. So, no, for me listening at home, I’m not trying to get the system to ‘fool’ me into thinking I’m at The Jazz Workshop. I know I’m not. Nor am I trying to get the system to ‘trick’ me into thinking that Horace Silver’s quintet is in my living room. I know they’re not.

I’m simply looking for the system to deliver the music I enjoy and to do a reasonable job of portraying the various instruments in what strikes me as a tonally-accurate facsimile of what I recall those instruments to sound like. And to reveal enough inner detail (the bass drum pedal squeaking, for example) so that on occasion, I smile and think, “Hey, how ‘bout that!” Or enough low-bass impact that my wife tells me to turn it down.

3a’s and 11’s do that nicely, for me, to my taste. I can go on and on about their technical strengths and shortcomings (as well as the validity/invalidity of their designers’ and proponents’ assumptions) as well as anyone here. I know all the pluses and minuses. I know what I believe, I know how my positions stack up within the continuum of thought that’s out there, and I know how closely most people cling to their positions (including me, in perfect candor)."

Wise words!

-k

[genek]

My God, and here I am sitting here typing messages and listening to Handel in my skivvies. In the mornings, while listening to my smaller system, I work out on my elliptical trainer with the fan blowing on me and no clothes on at all.

I'll install a screen in front of the system tomorrow.

Howard, you have no idea how much trouble you're in. While Ken's secret society has been gathering data on your listening habits through your speakers, the two-way transmission pixels we embedded in every flat panel monitor on the planet during my years in the AMLCD cartel have been amassing global 3D point cloud models that put their primitive eyeball tweeter videos to shame. And I'm still sworn to secrecy about exactly what the microscopic RFID chips molded into everyone's shirt and underwear buttons are sending out and to whom. Let's just say that the increased volume of hoodia and viagra spam you've been receiving lately is not merely coincidental.

[kkantor]

My God, and here I am sitting here typing messages and listening to Handel in my skivvies. In the mornings, while listening to my smaller system, I work out on my elliptical trainer with the fan blowing on me and no clothes on at all.

I'll install a screen in front of the system tomorrow.

Howard Ferstler

I know, Howard, I know.

It's also an interesting factoid that most Objectivist writers use elliptical trainers, while the Subjectivist writers use hyperbolic ones...

-k

"Classical Music... Because 462 Fans Can't Be Wrong!"

[soundminded]

I see no reason to get all worked up over this upcoming article. It's only 3 people giving an opinion on the performance of 3 vintage loudspeakers, the condition of which will be questioned and debated long after the article is published.

It DOESN'T matter. Why? The sample size is too small. JA's measurements will be interesting to see, but only in the context that they are probably done with better instrumentation and more controlled than any we could do and, they hopefully are on a par as a basis of comparison of these classics with numerous others he's tested.

What matters is what you see when you look at the "Topics" and "Replies" columns in the CSP discussion forums. Look at the disparity in the hundreds of posts and thousands of views (by hundreds and hundreds of members and visitors) amongst the various brands.

Now that's a more meaningful sample size to draw conclusions from regarding listener preferences.

"I see no reason to get all worked up over this upcoming article. It's only 3 people giving an opinion on the performance of 3 vintage loudspeakers, the condition of which will be questioned and debated long after the article is published. "

So that's what you think it's all about? Could I interest you in a bridge that goes to a place called Brooklyn? I've got one hell of a deal on one right now.

Studying Robert Parker is interesting. He graduated from law school and his parents gave him a case of 1967 Chateau Laffite Rothschild as a gift. Contrary to the popular wisdom...and the wisdom of the merchants who sold it wherever it was available, he found it to be terrible. That led him to give up a career as an attorney and instead become the greatest wine critic in the world. He also unmasked the incestuous relationship between wine merchants (negociants) and wine producers in Brodeaux France. He bacame known as "the man with the paragon palate." As a result, sales of many of the most famous makers plummeted and sales of fine California wines rose, the result of Bordeaux's complacency when it had no objective independent critics to tell the brutal and frank truth. He even received death threats. Between his books and his news letter and those of his competitors at Wine Spectator Magazine, they changed the face of the wine industry forever. To those who think memory of complex sensory experience is necessarily short, Parker claimed in a rare interview in 2003 to be able to identify both the vintner and vintage of over 100,000 wines by smell and taste alone (double blind) and it is probably true. He's been called the greatest critic of anything in the world.

Howard, don't quit your day job.

Zilch, so Earl's reputation is not to be in any way impugned. Hmm, I wonder why.

Jim, do you think that I believe for one moment that you would lend what may be among your most prized and nearly impossible to replace possessions to just anyone including strangers just because you are such a nice guy? Do you think I was born yesterday?

The technique used by Stereophile magazine and promulgated on web sites it financially supports is an interesing and very subtle one. It is a very soft sell. No overt endorsements of any one particular product, not even so much of the magazine itself. Instead it fosters a culture, almost like a cult religion that creates utterly nonsensical unfounded beliefs in the minds of unskilled and untrained people who read it that steers them to buy various classes of useless products like expensive wires and equipment of very dubious advantage like expensive amplifiers. (How do I know? I'm a degreed electrical engineer with nearly 40 years of experience. I've seen comparable scams for industrial equipment that makes the high end consumer audio business look like pikers.) That constitutes probably over 99% of Stereophile's audience it writes to. It doesn't stop there though. These readers become the "cognizenti" whom others even less informed turn to for advice when they have lots of money and little knowledge. What we are likely to hear about AR3a is that "they were excellent in their day." Message; even if you own fine vintage equipment, you would do well to replace it with something new. What you will not hear is "we adjusted the FR with an equalizer, experimented with the speakers carefully giving them every opportunity to prove themselves and when so adjusted in most important regards they were as good as anything currently available on the market without spending a fortune. That is the pre-determined conclusion I'll bet they are going to spread around. Very subtle. Very effective.

[Shacky]

"

Jim, do you think that I believe for one moment that you would lend what may be among your most prized and nearly impossible to replace possessions to just anyone including strangers just because you are such a nice guy? Do you think I was born yesterday?

Sorry to pop your conspiracy bubble. My sole motivation is an interest in seeing the 3a's get a fair chance by making sure a well restored (maybe I'm giving myself too much credit) pair are used for the evaluation. I saw the post, called Peter, and that's it.

I take this hobby fairly seriously - so sometimes it really is that simple. I really can't imagine someone listening to my 3a's and not saying something positive. Am I naive? Maybe so.

Of course there's pride motivating me too. Would be cool to see my speakers in Stereophile. It will make them that much more a conversation piece and reason to never let them go. I also don't see what they could do that would hurt them. If I'm wrong it could be a painful lesson.

It would really be a thrill if Sam Tellig was doing the review. Sam's section is the biggest reason I still subscribe to Stereophile.

[Carlspeak]

"I see no reason to get all worked up over this upcoming article. It's only 3 people giving an opinion on the performance of 3 vintage loudspeakers, the condition of which will be questioned and debated long after the article is published. "

So that's what you think it's all about? Could I interest you in a bridge that goes to a place called Brooklyn? I've got one hell of a deal on one right now.

Studying Robert Parker is interesting. He graduated from law school and his parents gave him a case of 1967 Chateau Laffite Rothschild as a gift. Contrary to the popular wisdom...and the wisdom of the merchants who sold it wherever it was available, he found it to be terrible. That led him to give up a career as an attorney and instead become the greatest wine critic in the world. He also unmasked the incestuous relationship between wine merchants (negociants) and wine producers in Brodeaux France. He bacame known as "the man with the paragon palate." As a result, sales of many of the most famous makers plummeted and sales of fine California wines rose, the result of Bordeaux's complacency when it had no objective independent critics to tell the brutal and frank truth. He even received death threats. Between his books and his news letter and those of his competitors at Wine Spectator Magazine, they changed the face of the wine industry forever. To those who think memory of complex sensory experience is necessarily short, Parker claimed in a rare interview in 2003 to be able to identify both the vintner and vintage of over 100,000 wines by smell and taste alone (double blind) and it is probably true. He's been called the greatest critic of anything in the world.

Howard, don't quit your day job.

Zilch, so Earl's reputation is not to be in any way impugned. Hmm, I wonder why.

Jim, do you think that I believe for one moment that you would lend what may be among your most prized and nearly impossible to replace possessions to just anyone including strangers just because you are such a nice guy? Do you think I was born yesterday?

The technique used by Stereophile magazine and promulgated on web sites it financially supports is an interesing and very subtle one. It is a very soft sell. No overt endorsements of any one particular product, not even so much of the magazine itself. Instead it fosters a culture, almost like a cult religion that creates utterly nonsensical unfounded beliefs in the minds of unskilled and untrained people who read it that steers them to buy various classes of useless products like expensive wires and equipment of very dubious advantage like expensive amplifiers. (How do I know? I'm a degreed electrical engineer with nearly 40 years of experience. I've seen comparable scams for industrial equipment that makes the high end consumer audio business look like pikers.) That constitutes probably over 99% of Stereophile's audience it writes to. It doesn't stop there though. These readers become the "cognizenti" whom others even less informed turn to for advice when they have lots of money and little knowledge. What we are likely to hear about AR3a is that "they were excellent in their day." Message; even if you own fine vintage equipment, you would do well to replace it with something new. What you will not hear is "we adjusted the FR with an equalizer, experimented with the speakers carefully giving them every opportunity to prove themselves and when so adjusted in most important regards they were as good as anything currently available on the market without spending a fortune. That is the pre-determined conclusion I'll bet they are going to spread around. Very subtle. Very effective.

SM, I think you're spending too much time lurking here. You are beginning to wander all over the place. First me, then Z, then Jim and finally, the never-ending tiresome Stereophile bashing - boring.

Oh, I forgot, Praise be to Mr. Robert Parker.

[soundminded]

Sorry to pop your conspiracy bubble. My sole motivation is an interest in seeing the 3a's get a fair chance by making sure a well restored (maybe I'm giving myself too much credit) pair are used for the evaluation. I saw the post, called Peter, and that's it.

I take this hobby fairly seriously - so sometimes it really is that simple. I really can't imagine someone listening to my 3a's and not saying something positive. Am I naive? Maybe so.

Of course there's pride motivating me too. Would be cool to see my speakers in Stereophile. It will make them that much more a conversation piece and reason to never let them go. I also don't see what they could do that would hurt them. If I'm wrong it could be a painful lesson.

It would really be a thrill if Sam Tellig was doing the review. Sam's section is the biggest reason I still subscribe to Stereophile.

So a guy you don't know posts here, says he is from Stereophile magazine and gives you a phone number, asks to borrow a pair of AR3as in pristine conditon for some listening (not at your house of course) for an article, and you just jump up, run to the phone and tell him "take mine! take mine!" Sorry I didn't think of it first. That would be the last you ever saw of them. Even if he is telling the truth, what will you do if they are returned damaged? What if the tweeters are blown? Do you think they'd ever be the same again?

Once many years ago on another board, someone was lauding the praises of a CD duplicator which "enhanced" the sound of CDs by some magical unknown process. He had shills supporting him who worked up the rest of the contributors into a frenzy. When I suggested it might be a fraud because no technical claims were made for it, I was kicked off for a week. Evidently a lot of people bought this product based on that posting. Then one day about 6 months later, it came out that the guy who was selling this thing had them drop shipped to his house from the real manufacturer who made no special claims about them, put his own name on them, and charged double the price. Wow were they furious. An old saying has it that a fool and his money (and AR3as) are soon parted. So do you know the people you are lending them to or will you just lend them on good faith to anyone who says the right magic words like "I'm from Stereophile Magazine?" And people wonder how Bernie Madoff got away with it. There's one born every minute. Why not at least force them to agree to leave something of far greater financial value with you as collateral which they will agree to forfeit in exchange if your speakers are not returned in satisfactory condition? Let's if they are as trusting of you as you claim to be of them.