Stereophile Review of AR3a...

[Carlspeak]

"I heard back from JA yesterday"

A direct pipeline to "Mister Big" himself! Wow! Do you have a direct pipeline to god too or does God go through JA to communicate with you?

After over 35 years of concentrated research and experimentation, I have derived an all-incompassing formula which allows me communication with God. However, for fear of theft of my proprietary ideas, I do not plan to patent or publish it.

[soundminded]

After over 35 years of concentrated research and experimentation, I have derived an all-incompassing formula which allows me communication with God. However, for fear of theft of my proprietary ideas, I do not plan to patent or publish it.

I'm working on it, I'm working on it.

BTW, if you want me to put in a good word for you with the man upstairs.....fageddaboudit, I don't have the time, I'm too busy typing and drawing

[ar_pro]

In November, 2002, Stereophile published their list of the "Hot 100 Audio Products Of All Time" - the AR-3a came in at number 97, having barely made the list:

97]: AR 3A loudspeaker

(No Stereophile review.) It may have been ugly, colored, and with rolled-off highs, but the sealed-box 3A defined the "Boston Sound" and helped establish the American speaker industry. I never liked it, but I can't ignore it. Pretty much the same drive-units were used in AR's multidirectional LST, which years later was to inspire Mark Levinson's Cello speakers. I really didn't like the LST.

One of JA's mentioned criteria was the effect that a product had had on his development as an audiophile. Taking into account that he had once previously indicated that he had never heard an AR-3a until well after its production had ceased, it makes one wonder where in the hell he had been for 20 years.

And we're not discussing some arcane product cobbled together in someone's basement, but easily one of the most widely-purchased, top-of-the-line loudspeakers in history - kind of like fancying yourself an opinionated sports car writer, but with no knowledge of the Corvette.

I said feh to this article a year ago, and now, double-feh.

[Zilch]

Uhmmm, JA did not write the article, and he just fired the guy who did.

Not to worry, even if the article pans AR3a, we are now told that the test subjects, then touted as all but "state of the art" in AR restoration, in retrospect, weren't, i.e., in response to his request for a sample representative of our best efforts, this forum slipped PB a pair of ringers.

OTOH, if the review lauds these particular vintage relics, we are well positioned to revel in the knowledge that even sub-standard examples (whatever "standard" might comprise,) stood up under the scrutiny, for every bit of what that might be worth upon resale....

[soundminded]

Uhmmm, JA did not write the article, and he just fired the guy who did.

Not to worry, even if the article pans AR3a, we are now told that the test subjects, then touted as all but "state of the art" in AR restoration, in retrospect, weren't, i.e., in response to his request for a sample representative of our best efforts, this forum slipped PB a pair of ringers.

OTOH, if the review lauds these particular vintage relics, we are well positioned to revel in the knowledge that even sub-standard examples (whatever "standard" might comprise,) stood up under the scrutiny, for every bit of what that might be worth upon resale....

With skillful applicationn of inexpesive equalization not available at the time AR3a or LST was marketed, much of those colorations can be sharply reduced or eliminated entirely. The result is a speaker that can go head to head against some of the best and most expensive on the market 40 years later. That either says a lot for AR3a or very little for two generations of engineers who competed against it.

I don't expect that the review of AR3a would be flattering at all. While JA might sit at a workstation tweaking a recording with a 64 band equalizer to within a tenth of a db of what he considers perfection, the idea of using one ten band equalizer even cursorily in a playback system is verboten, an anathema to him and most audiophiles. This proves he is no electrical engineer. Engineers don't just look to achieve results, they look for the most practical and economic way to achieve them. I have yet to see a professionally installed sound system without one. Whith a Dolby A phonotraph record typically using at least 14 equalizers between the microphone output in making the recording and the phono stage output on playback, one more stage of equalization to improve the performance of a recording/playback system will not break the bank when it comes to adding distortion. In fact even the cheapest equalizers add no perceptable non linear distortion. The confused naive view of what the process of high fidelity sound reproduction is all about and the valid engineering methods to achieve it that is so prevalent among hobbyists and those who build products for them may explain why there has been almost no progress during these last decades.

[genek]

Uhmmm, JA did not write the article, and he just fired the guy who did.

Not to worry, even if the article pans AR3a, we are now told that the test subjects, then touted as all but "state of the art" in AR restoration, in retrospect, weren't, i.e., in response to his request for a sample representative of our best efforts, this forum slipped PB a pair of ringers.

OTOH, if the review lauds these particular vintage relics, we are well positioned to revel in the knowledge that even sub-standard examples (whatever "standard" might comprise,) stood up under the scrutiny, for every bit of what that might be worth upon resale....

The odds of any review that used samples of vintage gear obtained from sources not equipped to assure they are performing correctly telling us anything useful were always pretty slim. Add in the fact that the speakers under review all hail from a period when almost no speaker manufactured met todays's "flat and accurate" preferences and everything was sold by appealing to customers on the basis of their preference for sound from opposite coasts, and the entire exercise amounted to nothing more than a chance to hold a wine and cheese gearhead party at some publisher's expense. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing; if invited to participate in such a gathering, I would have accepted in an instant.

[ar_pro]

Zich, Atkinson's bias against and lack of familiarity with the 3a was the point. Editors impact the end product - it's what they do.

But we shouldn't conflate imperfection in the sample with result - this project was going to be difficult to pull off, and it's no surprise that it wound up in the dumpster.

The fact that the AR-3a has such a significant following, decades after its last manufacture puts it in a special position, with Restoring The AR-3a pretty much providing the expected standard of result, these many years later.

[genek]

Zich, Atkinson's bias against and lack of familiarity with the 3a was the point.

Lack of familiarity shouldn't be a problem in a product review. Bias (for or against) is another matter. I wouldn't want to have to edit something written about a product I don't like, and would probably try to offload that duty to someone who I thought was more objective.

[Pete B]

Uhmmm, JA did not write the article, and he just fired the guy who did.

I heard that Peter Breuninger was in a serious accident and that is why he is

no longer contributing. Try not to jump to conclusions.

[soundminded]

The odds of any review that used samples of vintage gear obtained from sources not equipped to assure they are performing correctly telling us anything useful were always pretty slim. Add in the fact that the speakers under review all hail from a period when almost no speaker manufactured met todays's "flat and accurate" preferences and everything was sold by appealing to customers on the basis of their preference for sound from opposite coasts, and the entire exercise amounted to nothing more than a chance to hold a wine and cheese gearhead party at some publisher's expense. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing; if invited to participate in such a gathering, I would have accepted in an instant.

Hirsch Houck Laboratories, CBS Laboratories, and Audiophile's own in house lab all had the means and likely would have used them to check out and restore the equipment insofar as that was possible had they taken on a comparable project. Anyone else who wanted to undertake such a project would have farmed out restoration to someone capable at the very least. They would not have relied on chance and would not have tried to beg, borrow, and steal when so many of these are available for a few hundred dollars a pair on e-bay. To the degree that the speakers could not be restored because replacement parts could not be obtained or materials had degraded to a point where they no longer functioned, they would have reported that in their review after a careful inspection and testing and explained how that affected their own tests and evaluations and how that likely would be different from what the speaker would have performed like when it was new and functioning properly as the manufacturer intended. That Stereophile didn't or couldn't (if that is true as seems to me to be the case) shows they are a seat of the pants, shoot from the hip outfit. That is my impression of them which is one reason I don't have any respect for them. Another is that I believe they are biased towards the current high end audio subculture which rejects sound engineering principles in favor of products which produce great profit regardless of their merit....like exotic speaker cables, interconnect cables, pawer cables, passive preamplifiers and the like. They are exactly what Gordon Holt rejected (or says he did) when he left High Fidelity Magazine to start Stereophile Magazine in the first place.

[soundminded]

I heard that Peter Breuninger was in a serious accident and that is why he is

no longer contributing. Try not to jump to conclusions.

Yeah, he had a head on collision in public with his boss. What a coincidence.

[ar_pro]

Lack of familiarity shouldn't be a problem in a product review. Bias (for or against) is another matter. I wouldn't want to have to edit something written about a product I don't like, and would probably try to offload that duty to someone who I thought was more objective.

Oh, agreed.

But for the editor of an audiophile publication to be so profoundly ignorant of the AR-3a is troubling.

There are some things that should be de riguer, in order to claim a level of authority or critical ability, wouldn't you think?

[genek]

Any valid listing of this kind should have had the AR-1, AR-2, AR-3, and AR-3a listed as 1, 2, 3 and 4. (OK, I am prejudiced.) The LST probably should have been in the top ten, too, as should the AR Turntable and Receiver. The list should also have had the Allison Model One in there somewhere, along with products from Dynaco, Advent, KLH, and the Shure cartridge line. These are products that opened up the hobby in an affordable and sensible way to scads of serious music lovers.

I think you're mixing different peoples' comments. PB's review was intended to be about a sampling of popular models from a particular period (the 3a, Dynaco and Advent were all 70's products), not a comprehensive look at audio landmarks as mentioned by JA.

I might argue that based on sales volumes a pair of 2ax's might have been a better choice for a representation of AR's contribution to this mix, since the Dynacos mentioned were that brand's big sellers and not its TOTL.

Since it seems the distrust of motives seems to have been directed primarily at JA, now that PB is no longer associated with Stereophile, perhaps any pressure to bias the results is also no longer there...? No way to know unless it eventually gets published somewhere.

[soundminded]

I think you're mixing different peoples' comments. PB's review was intended to be about a sampling of popular models from a particular period (the 3a, Dynaco and Advent were all 70's products), not a comprehensive look at audio landmarks as mentioned by JA.

I might argue that based on sales volumes a pair of 2ax's might have been a better choice for a representation of AR's contribution to this mix, since the Dynacos mentioned were that brand's big sellers and not its TOTL.

Since it seems the distrust of motives seems to have been directed primarily at JA, now that PB is no longer associated with Stereophile, perhaps any pressure to bias the results is also no longer there...? No way to know unless it eventually gets published somewhere.

"Since it seems the distrust of motives seems to have been directed primarily at JA, now that PB is no longer associated with Stereophile, perhaps any pressure to bias the results is also no longer there...?"

Not being in any way knowledgeable about the magazine publishing business, I can only guess that most of the cost of producing an article like the one PB was working on lies in the research, the time it takes to compose it, and the time it takes to edit it. That apparently has already been done or nearly done. Would the extra pages crowd out ads or other articles? I wouldn't think so. It could have been published in installments adding only one or two pages per issue. It is clear from the posting on AA that PB, whatever flaws of his approach to the article aside, wanted to publish it, JA didn't, not now and probably not ever. Perhaps when PB suggested it JA brushed him aside with some sort of remark like: 'yeah, go ahead if you want to, I'll look at it when its done" hoping and expecting nothing would come of it. Then when something did, JA just didn't want to hear about it. I wonder if PB even got paid for it. I doubt it.

AR3a is on exhibit in the Smithsonian museum I think. AR3 and AR3a represent landmarks in many respects and are paradigms for a number of engineering virtues. They were highly innovative, practical, affordable, flexible in their use and installation, reliable, manufactured to high standards, and represented in some important regards the best technology of their day. There are few products that can make all those claims. Not only that but they were not conceived, designed and built by some giant goliath of a corporation but by individuals starting from scratch with nothing but ideas. Perhaps in some ways AR was a kind of Apple Computer of the audio equipment industry.

[genek]

It is clear from the posting on AA that PB, whatever flaws of his approach to the article aside, wanted to publish it, JA didn't, not now and probably not ever. Perhaps when PB suggested it JA brushed him aside with some sort of remark like: 'yeah, go ahead if you want to, I'll look at it when its done" hoping and expecting nothing would come of it. Then when something did, JA just didn't want to hear about it. I wonder if PB even got paid for it. I doubt it.

I recall some TV journalist who quit the network she was working for a few years back because it wouldn't run a report she had taped. I think she got hired by another network that eventually aired it. If PB can't find another publisher interested in his review, I'm sure we can find a place for it here. We can also provide reviewers for his review, and a lot more space for him to discuss it than he probably would have gotten in Stereophile. What we can't provide is money...

[speaker dave]

I'm sorry we won't be seeing the AR3a review but I'm hearing a lot of things about JA, the magazine etc. that don't jive with my experience.

Magazines have an inherent cost to put out. They usually start with the number of advertising pages they can sell and multiply that times a factor for the number of pages of editorial they can afford that month. 20 pages of advertising covers the cost of 100 pages of editorial, or some such multiplier. As such JA has to decide carefully what best appeals to his reader base. If he picks well the magazine flourishes. If not so well...then a lot of magazines are folding these days. We would love to see the AR3a reviewed but we probably don't match a cross section of the magazine's readership. In fact most of this forum's members are downright antagonistic towards the magazine and the products it represents.

I can't see JA's personal feelings about the AR3a leading him to manipulate the review. Actually, the thing I find most amusing about Stereophile is watching JA, after he measures a product reviewed by a staff writer, tap dancing around the disparity between what he measured and what the reviewer perceived (or totally failed to perceive). I've never gotten the impression that he has the time or inclination to influence the reviews. He lives in a world of column inches, deadlines, advertising rates, declining readership, printing costs, etc. Why should he try and influence the review of a 40 year old product?

Should he have a more reverential view of the AR3a? Having a British background I suspect he wonders why we don't have more respect for the Spendor BC1, Quad ELS, or various Tannoys, Rogers and Harbeths. Speakers can be pretty regional. AR eventually became a factor in the UK but wasn't very well known there in the 60's. American speakers didn't always suit the UK pallet, and vice versa.

I'm sticking up for John because I've known him since the 80's. He is very knowledgable about speakers and has probably carefully measured more of them than most designers I know. He is a serious recordist as well. I've ever doubted his integrity.

David

[ar_pro]

Honestly, I never muched liked the notion of mixng the AR-3a, Advent and Dynaco speakers into a single vintage review, as it would combine AR's "best effort" with speakers that were clearly built to a budget. Your point about the AR-2ax being a better fit in this group is well taken.

I can't speak to motives, just what's been published, and my comments regarding JA stand - as an audiophile and purported expert commentator, how he managed to avoid listening to an AR-3a until he did is almost inconceivable.

The AR-3/3a was frequently the standard against which home-based loudspeakers in the '60s were judged, and it found its way into more home audio systems than any other manufacturer's top-of-the-line loudspeaker.

This being the case, it argues that the 3a should have had its *own* review, independent of the cost-is-really-an-object Advent or Dynaco systems.

Stereophile's earlier Bozak review was a fun read, and served as a model for future columns - many were hoping for similar coverage of the AR-3a, JBL L-300, and maybe one of the big Altec systems, with an eye toward how they compare against the current crop of loudspeakers.

[genek]

Honestly, I never muched liked the notion of mixng the AR-3a, Advent and Dynaco speakers into a single vintage review, as it would combine AR's "best effort" with speakers that were clearly built to a budget. Your point about the AR-2ax being a better fit in this group is well taken.

I was actually thinking about the 2ax as a "better fit" because the greater numbers of them out there probably make it a more ubiquitous AR model, but it does fit better based on position in product range as well. OTOH, the 3a is the more renowned of the classic era ARs and has more of a cult following.

[Zilch]

Actually, the thing I find most amusing about Stereophile is watching JA, after he measures a product reviewed by a staff writer, tap dancing around the disparity between what he measured and what the reviewer perceived (or totally failed to perceive).

It's quite a stretch, sometimes....

[soundminded]

I recall some TV journalist who quit the network she was working for a few years back because it wouldn't run a report she had taped. I think she got hired by another network that eventually aired it. If PB can't find another publisher interested in his review, I'm sure we can find a place for it here. We can also provide reviewers for his review, and a lot more space for him to discuss it than he probably would have gotten in Stereophile. What we can't provide is money...

"If PB can't find another publisher interested in his review, I'm sure we can find a place for it here. We can also provide reviewers for his review"

That would be good news. I'm gettig bored with only Howard and Zilch to critique

[kkantor]

Any valid listing of this kind should have had the AR-1, AR-2, AR-3, and AR-3a listed as 1, 2, 3 and 4. (OK, I am prejudiced.) The LST probably should have been in the top ten, too, as should the AR Turntable and Receiver. The list should also have had the Allison Model One in there somewhere, along with products from Dynaco, Advent, KLH, and the Shure cartridge line. These are products that opened up the hobby in an affordable and sensible way to scads of serious music lovers. To so ignore or downgrade products from a company that at one time had 1/3 of the US loudspeaker market shows bias on a grand scale. Stereophile was (and is) to audio journalism what Fox News is to mainstream journalism. I wonder if the listing included the Allison IC-20, a speaker that certainly set standards in the high-end realm.

Howard Ferstler

I think any such list is destined to fail spectacularly. Just google "The 100 Best Albums," "The 100 Most Beautiful Women," "The 100 Greatest Novels," "The 100 Most Important Philosophers," "The 100 Smartest People," "The 100 Best Films," "100 Places To Visit Before You Die," "100 Inventions That Changed History," etc. Always popular, never meaningful. Consumer Reports built an entire enterprise out of list-making.

As to the LST: I suspect there was at least some element of, "Damn it, we need a pentagonal speaker with 9 drivers that handles a lot of power and bounces the sound around the room, and we need it now! Tell those guys in engineering to give us more of whatever the heck it is they keep talking about in those meetings!!"

-k

[speaker dave]

"I've ever doubted his integrity. "

David

Never doubted his integrity!

[genek]

I think any such list is destined to fail spectacularly. Just google "The 100 Best Albums," "The 100 Most Beautiful Women," "The 100 Greatest Novels," "The 100 Most Important Philosophers," "The 100 Smartest People," "The 100 Best Films," "100 Places To Visit Before You Die," "100 Inventions That Changed History," etc. Always popular, never meaningful. Consumer Reports built an entire enterprise out of list-making.

As to the LST: I suspect there was at least some element of, "Damn it, we need a pentagonal speaker with 9 drivers that handles a lot of power and bounces the sound around the room, and we need it now! Tell those guys in engineering to give us more of whatever the heck it is they keep talking about in those meetings!!"

I'm not sure about that "always popular, never meaningful" when it comes to products (and isn't everything you mentioned a product on some level or another?) Design-by-focus-group seems to be the standard in today's product development, and the products that score the most popular are the ones that get produced. If that "damn it" decision were to happen today, it would most likely be because someone else's pentagonal speaker with 9 drivers that handles a lot of power and bounces the sound around the room scored higher (was more popular) in a focus group panel than whatever the company is making now. To today's manufacturers, popularity is the most meaningful determinant of a "good" product to develop.

[Pete B]

http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=...reophile&r=

Edit: I just noticed that the date of that report of the accident is long before the start of this thread.

I was told of it, as the reason, just last month.

[genek]

Edit: I just noticed that the date of that report of the accident is long before the start of this thread.

I was told of it, as the reason, just last month.

I think it's safe to assume that he got better.