Stereophile Review of AR3a...

[soundminded]

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

So you are suggesting that there was no compelling or even valid technical justification for the development of LST, just a marketing strategy to offer a product to compete with Bose 901 by virtue of a vague physical resemblance to the cabinet shape? That sounds strange to me. LST cost more than twice what 901 did, twice what AR3a did. If that was the reason, it didn't work. If you take all 6 incarnations of 901 and string them together as variants of a single product (a rationale of questionable validity) it would likely be the single longest marketed most units sold of any one elecronics product in the history of the audio industry. LST only stayed in production for a few years. Over 40 years after 901 made its first appearance, it is still available.

[soundminded]

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

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

Until the other day when he suddenly took a turn for the worse

[genek]

Until the other day when he suddenly took a turn for the worse

This assumes that JA "fired" PB. You've never quit a job (and from the few issues of Stereophile that I've read, my guess is it probably wasn't PB's "day job") because you disagreed with the boss?

[Zilch]

This assumes that JA "fired" PB. You've never quit a job (and from the few issues of Stereophile that I've read, my guess is it probably wasn't PB's "day job") because you disagreed with the boss?

Most all of us are well familiar with the concept of "irreconcilable differences."

First time it happened to me, I was a freshman in high school.

Who broke up with whom remains indeterminate to this date, a VERY long time later.

[she CLAIMED to have lost the ring.... ]

[kkantor]

So you are suggesting that there was no compelling or even valid technical justification for the development of LST, just a marketing strategy to offer a product to compete with Bose 901 by virtue of a vague physical resemblance to the cabinet shape? That sounds strange to me. LST cost more than twice what 901 did, twice what AR3a did. If that was the reason, it didn't work. If you take all 6 incarnations of 901 and string them together as variants of a single product (a rationale of questionable validity) it would likely be the single longest marketed most units sold of any one elecronics product in the history of the audio industry. LST only stayed in production for a few years. Over 40 years after 901 made its first appearance, it is still available.

Of course not! The technical goals of the LST were clear and justified. I proudly owned them for many years.

But, some details of their design, the location of the woofer and the speed at which the product moved through the design process, all suggest to me that there was an element of market reaction.

-k

[soundminded]

Most all of us are well familiar with the concept of "irreconcilable differences."

First time it happened to me, I was a freshman in high school.

Who broke up with whom remains indeterminate to this date, a VERY long time later.

[she CLAIMED to have lost the ring.... ]

Lost the ring? What happened, her parents couldn't stand you? So did you wind up paying child support? What kind of paying job can a high school freshman get, pumping gas or flipping burgers after school? Is it even legal at that age?

[Zilch]

Lost the ring? What happened, her parents couldn't stand you?

It was a gold ring, and her dad was an alcoholic.

Her next "boyfriend" was a junior who drove a delivery truck for the family dairy, whereas, I just rode a bike.

[upward mobility.... ]

[soundminded]

It was a gold ring, and her dad was an alcoholic.

Her next "boyfriend" was a junior who drove a delivery truck for the family dairy, whereas, I just rode a bike.

[upward mobility.... ]

I know I will regret asking but Zilch, how did a freshman in high school acquire a gold ring and why would he give it to a mere girlfriend when at that age they come and they go so frequently?

[Zilch]

I know I will regret asking but Zilch, how did a freshman in high school acquire a gold ring and why would he give it to a mere girlfriend when at that age they come and they go so frequently?

They're S'POSED to give the ring back, silly SM.

[Guess what -- sometimes they don't.]

Footnote: The other guy had it figured better: Said right on his truck, "Nobody rides for free...."

[genek]

It was a very sad day in my young life when they stopped putting costume jewelry rings into CrackerJack boxes...

[Steve F]

But, some details of their design, the location of the woofer and the speed at which the product moved through the design process, all suggest to me that there was an element of market reaction.

-k

As there always is!

Some of the most successful products of all time are reactions to other manufacturers' products. This is true in any industry--cars, speakers, cameras, fashion, you name it. But just because a given product is somewhat of a 'market reaction' doesn't mean that excellent engineering and innovative thinking haven't taken place. On the contrary. The 2010 Hyundai Sonata is clearly a "reactive" product, but it is also fully competitive to the Camry, Accord, Mazda 6, and Fusion. Full credit to Hyundai's engineering and design staffs. The end consumer now has an additional good alternative in that market.

That is a good thing, not a bad thing. It also pushes Hyundai's competitors to better themselves with their next offerings, and again, the consumer wins.

As to the 2ax being more suitable for this review than the 3a, yes, perhaps if the main point of the review was "Moderately-priced loudspeakers from the '70's". I get the feeling that the main thrust of the review was "Iconic loudspeakers of the '70's", in which case the 3a is the better choice.

I also get the feeling--unsubstantiated, but a distinct feeling from somewhere, nonetheless--that it was a goal of the review to 'ambush' the 3a. I don't know why. I just smelled it from the start.

Steve F.

[genek]

As to the 2ax being more suitable for this review than the 3a, yes, perhaps if the main point of the review was "Moderately-priced loudspeakers from the '70's". I get the feeling that the main thrust of the review was "Iconic loudspeakers of the '70's", in which case the 3a is the better choice.

The stated criteria was "best sellers" (see post #1). Anybody got any official sales figures for classic AR models? I'd be willing to stick my neck out and predict they'd show the 2ax and the 4x beating the 3a for number of units shipped.

[Steve F]

The stated criteria was "best sellers" (see post #1). Anybody got any official sales figures for classic AR models? I'd be willing to stick my neck out and predict they'd show the 2ax and the 4x beating the 3a for number of units shipped.

"Best sellers" is apparently code-speak for "iconic." They were looking for the most-famous, well-known speakers from the most highly-regarded brands. "Best sellers" was probably loosely applied to the companies' sales, not any individual model. In any event, they chose the 3a, not the 2ax. We can back-fill any rationalization or altered definition we choose. We can only try to come up with the question that Stereophile proposed for the review for which the answer was "3a.".

Steve F.

[genek]

"Best sellers" is apparently code-speak for "iconic." They were looking for the most-famous, well-known speakers from the most highly-regarded brands. "Best sellers" was probably loosely applied to the companies' sales, not any individual model. In any event, they chose the 3a, not the 2ax. We can back-fill any rationalization or altered definition we choose. We can only try to come up with the question that Stereophile proposed for the review for which the answer was "3a.".

What I'm most curious about was whether the panel listened to each speaker individually or all of them as a group, and whether they were compared to contemporary listening preferences or to each other. I have no doubt that the 3a would score badly compared to contemporary listening preferences (which, from what we've been told about the way they're determined, would seem to represent some sort of majority preference/lowest common denominator statistic, rather than the goal of any particular school of sound reproduction), but if Shacky's pair was in reasonably decent operating condition they should have easily dusted off the other two models in the review.

And yes, leave it to the writers and publishers of a "high end" audio mag to make up their own meanings for words that have nothing to do with what the words themselves mean.

[ar_pro]

Yeah, "best sellers" was imprecise, and probably not meant to be taken literally - who would want to read a review based solely upon a speaker's "Gross Tonnage Shipped"?

[kkantor]

As there always is!

Some of the most successful products of all time are reactions to other manufacturers' products. This is true in any industry--cars, speakers, cameras, fashion, you name it. But just because a given product is somewhat of a 'market reaction' doesn't mean that excellent engineering and innovative thinking haven't taken place. On the contrary. The 2010 Hyundai Sonata is clearly a "reactive" product, but it is also fully competitive to the Camry, Accord, Mazda 6, and Fusion. Full credit to Hyundai's engineering and design staffs. The end consumer now has an additional good alternative in that market.

That is a good thing, not a bad thing. It also pushes Hyundai's competitors to better themselves with their next offerings, and again, the consumer wins.

As to the 2ax being more suitable for this review than the 3a, yes, perhaps if the main point of the review was "Moderately-priced loudspeakers from the '70's". I get the feeling that the main thrust of the review was "Iconic loudspeakers of the '70's", in which case the 3a is the better choice.

I also get the feeling--unsubstantiated, but a distinct feeling from somewhere, nonetheless--that it was a goal of the review to 'ambush' the 3a. I don't know why. I just smelled it from the start.

Steve F.

OK, OK... my last comment was stupidly worded. Of course, all products are, "influenced by the market." The whole point of good product design, (good anything), is to study and learn from others. I was only pointing out a few specific aspects of the LST's configuration that I consider to have been impacted by the commercial success of the 901.

As to the vintage shootout: it would have been fun for me to read, regardless of any agenda. Surely it would have provided fodder for discussion and debate, which the biz needs. However, I realize that actually pulling off this kind of comparison is very difficult, and that it could easily turn into a lose-lose situation for the magazine.

-k

[Steve F]

OK, OK... my last comment was stupidly worded. Of course, all products are, "influenced by the market." The whole point of good product design, (good anything), is to study and learn from others. I was only pointing out a few specific aspects of the LST's configuration that I consider to have been impacted by the commercial success of the 901.

-k

Just to clarify my intent--I wasn't trying to imply that your "market" comment was 'stupidly worded.' On the contrary, I was giving an example in complete agreement and understanding of your point.

Steve F.

[soundminded]

Just to clarify my intent--I wasn't trying to imply that your "market" comment was 'stupidly worded.' On the contrary, I was giving an example in complete agreement and understanding of your point.

Steve F.

I disagree that the LST was a market reaction to Bose 901. IMO it was a logical extension of AR's philosophy of providing a speaker system with the widest possible lateral dispersion. AR3a had reached about the limit of what could be achieved with a single tweeter and a single midrange. IMO the reason that the tweeters were not mounted on equi-angular panels aiming each one in a different direction was that the cost of manufacturing the cabinet would have been prohibitive.

There was also the reality that very loud rock music had arrived on the scene and there was a market for those who wanted to play speakers at much higher SPLs than classical music and jazz required. The Crown DC300 introduced around the fall of 1968 and other high powered amplifiers introduced by SAE, Phase Linear, Bose, among others soon after meant that the system would need to be able to handle more power in the midrange and treble.

The front control knob which adjusted both the bass and treble simultaneously was an acknowledgement that the system would benefit from the flexibility to accomplish this easily. The Quad preamplifier had a tone control which performed similarly. There were no low cost consumer graphic equalizers available at that time, that was still several years away.

[Zilch]

Roy Allison (as you almost certainly know) designed the speaker. His idea was not to just bounce the sound around the room. The idea was to get as much flat-power, reverberant-field energy into the room as close to the speaker as possible, including the upper midrange and treble, stabilizing the critical distance and having the wide and very-wide off-axis output be as smooth as the on-axis output. He continued that approach with the Allison Acoustics speakers he designed later on.

[Howard just can't bring himself to calling it "constant directivity...." ]

[kkantor]

Whatever. Incidentally, Consumer Reports used the LST as its "reference" speaker for some time. I have that news from good sources, including Floyd Toole. It is likely that Julian Hirsch also used it as his reference unit. Larry Klein, who was the magazine's technical editor, once encountered a system that used four LSTs up front and two in the back. When Larry heard taped, surround-sound program sources played on that package his response was "This is it!," no doubt meaning that for him the ultimate speaker package had just been listened to.

Roy Allison (as you almost certainly know) designed the speaker. His idea was not to just bounce the sound around the room. The idea was to get as much flat-power, reverberant-field energy into the room as close to the speaker as possible, including the upper midrange and treble, stabilizing the critical distance and having the wide and very-wide off-axis output be as smooth as the on-axis output. He continued that approach with the Allison Acoustics speakers he designed later on.

Howard Ferstler

Howard,

No need to be defensive, and I well know the place of the LST in history. Uh, that's why I bought a pair, and used it as MY reference for several years. When I was 20, I probably could have quoted the LST's manual, and drawn all the curves, from memory. There was nothing in my comment that was meant to imply anything negative about the LST. I have been in hundreds of product development meetings at AR, NHT, ZT, (and everywhere else I have worked), where successful competitors, hit products and marketplace trends were discussed and reacted to. What else do you think happens in product planning sessions?? I was parodying this process, and pointing out what I see to be similarities.

This thread exemplifies exactly why I kick myself whenever I break my own rules and mention a particular model by name.

-k

BTW- Have you ever watched the Beatles movie, "A Hard Day's Night"? George accidentally walks into the wrong office:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xaxzMr3deM...feature=related

Also of note are the opera lyrics at 3:33.

[Zilch]

I discuss the advantages of this in both my first and third books, by the way.

The advantages of constant directivity or wide dispersion, Howard?

[Shacky]

I've not checked in for a while. Hope PB is OK if he was in an accident!

Couple of points:

JA never did measure the 3a's I loaned PB

I do like my second pair of 3a's better than my first. Don't know if it was bypass caps used on tweeters and meds, new summed binding posts, greater experience, or just condition of the drivers.

The pair I loaned him were in great shape to begin with and I recapped and installed NOS Ohmite pots. I set them up for bi-wiring.

Didn't sound like PB liked them (or the group he had do the audition).

Sounded like the Dynaco A25's did very well.

I'll try sending PB an email to see how he is and any news about the article. I had told him I had another pair of 3a's that I felt sounded better.

I've since brought my second [pair of 3a's to our Rochester AK Meeting. They were well liked!

[soundminded]

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

"bounces the sound around the room"

Not merely dismissive and condescending but demonstrating a complete lack of grasp of what the signifigance of reflections of sound means for the perception of sound and for the science of acoustics. In fact those reflections ARE the science of acoustis of architectural spaces and the only thing that differentiates them from one another and from anechoic spaces.

That science remains in a primitive state. Unless and until it advances, the art of engineering better sound recording/reproducing systems cannot advance either. That is one of its bottlenecks. To demonstrate how primitive it really is, here's a paper writte by Leo Beranek in 2008;

http://www.leoberanek.com/pages/concerthalls2008.pdf

In it he explains how the coefficient of absorption in Sabines equation has to exceed 1 to reconcile it with Eyring's equation even though that makes no sense because 1 represents the coefficient of absorption for an open window which produces no reflections. He also defines the "Listener Envelopment Factor" LEV which takes into consideration reflections off of the back wall and ceiling as sigificant contributors. Suddenly after all these years, the ceiling reflections are important.

[Carlspeak]

I can imagine that someone, somewhere has or is modeling reverberant acoustics from a different perspective using fluid mechanics/dynamics. The sophisticated software and computing power is out there. It must get pretty complicated though when all the reflections collide with the direct soundfield = chaos?

Can someone here (SM perhaps) scale down Baranek's theory to a typical home listening environment and interpret what the results mean?

[genek]

This stuff is way over my head, but if ceiling reflections have only just now suddenly become important, why have concert hall designers been hanging all that stuff from hall ceilings since before I was born?