Jump to content
The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Howard Ferstler

Howard Ferstler, Zilch, and the AR-3a.

Recommended Posts

Over the past few days (or was it weeks, or even months?), a guy who's pen name happens to be Zilch (or is it Mr. Zilch?) has been making some very negative comments about certain often highly admired, classic AR speakers (particularly the AR-3a), and by implication, Roy Allison and Edgar Villchur. That Mr. Zilch has shown up here at all, on a site devoted to "classic" products that he appears to not like at all, seems to be a bit odd. But, then again, Mr. Zilch is an odd character to begin with (bragging about his 20,000+ posts both here and on other sites is not something I would care to brag about), and so maybe he needs to vent. The series of debates has also involved information put forth by Dr. Floyd Toole in his recent book on loudspeakers and rooms, with Dr. Toole's views pretty much parallaling at least some of those put forth by Mr. Zilch.

I want to more or less summarize some of my feelings about this situation.

1. Mr. Zilch dismisses the original "live vs recorded" concerts presented by Ed Villchur in the 1960s as basically a series of showboating"stunts" that do no more to prove that AR speakers (specifically the AR-3) were, and are, decent performers than the demonstations given by Thomas Edison proved that his acoustic phonographs were as realistic sounding as a live ensemble.

It is obviously impossible to argue this point objectively with Mr. Zilch (even though some others here who have also discussed the issue attended some of those AR demos, including those done by Victor Campos at a later date), since the opinions involved would have to be subjective at best. Mr. Zilch did not attend the concerts (nor has he offered up info on any of the companies he admires doing demos of the same kind), and so his own opinion actually amounts to nothing. (Dr. Toole also did not attend them, which means that his dismissal of them in his book is about as vacuous as those outlined by Mr. Zilch.) Even if the AR-3 speakers only did a fair job of replicating the sound of the ensemble (although many serious audio buffs and audio journalists attending were solidly impressed), it is hard to believe that speakers with response curves as ragged as those illustrated by Mr. Zilch (and Dr. Toole) would be able to thoroughly wow so many different audio buffs. Those demos had a lot to do with the success AR enjoyed in the 1960s, and the corresponding response-curve proofs illustrated by both Mr. Zilch (here) and Dr. Toole (in his book) do more to show their wrong-headed approach to what matters with speaker sound than any weaknesses claimed by them regarding the performance of the AR-3.

Both Mr. Zilch and Dr. Toole would have a vested interest in successfully dismissing those concerts, because if what Villchur did was successful then the contentions of Mr. Zilch and many of the basic conclusions put forth by Dr. Toole in his book - are wrong.

2. As one example of his approach to marketing, Mr. Zilch has tried to technically duplicate something that Karl Rove managed to do during the political campaigns of the younger George Bush. Rove managed to take the positive points and examples put forth by opposing candidates and turn them on their heads in such a way that they looked negative instead of positive. (The awarding of the Silver Star notwithstanding, recall the Rove-machine treatment given John Kerry's military service in contrast to that of Mr. Bush.) Mr. Zilch has culled some comments from an article Roy Allison had published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society back in the 1970s, and pretty much turned them on their heads. Basically, Allison not only validated the wide-angle performance of the AR-3a (particularly in the upper midrange and treble), but also showed that the reverberant field dominates over the direct field with good, wide-dispersion speakers properly located in a typical home listening room, at least if the listener is not sitting on top of the speakers and the room is not furnished like the inside of a mattress. Mr. Zilch continues to claim that what Allison proved was that it is the direct field that predominates, which will be judged as preposterous by anyone who has read the article. However, with the rather directional speakers Mr. Zilch seems to favor (even though he claims they are wide dispersing, in spite of documentation both he and I have posted) it might just be possible for the direct field to dominate under some conditions.

Basically, Mr. Zilch has taken what amounts to a design defect with his favored models and tried to turn it into an advantage, and has attempted to use Roy Allison's own research to prove his point. Note that the preprint version of this article is now available on the Classic Speakers site (check the "recent updates" sidebar on the home page to access this large PDF file), and the article goes out of its way to prove that both Mr. Zilch and Dr. Toole are mistaken in many ways about the reverberant field and the performance of wide-dispersion speakers in real-world listening rooms. It did this long before Mr. Zilch and Dr. Toole began to formulate their counterpoint ideas. The Allison article draft eclipses any "research" done by Mr. Zilch or any of those people he claims know the score when it comes to loudspeaker sound.

3. Mr. Zilch has used another Rove tactic to reverse-engineer another advantage of the classic AR approach to speaker design, with his comments elsewhere about how nobody cares whether speakers manage to simulate live, concert-hall sound any more. Again, this is one of the strong points of the AR design approach, and Mr. Zilch is aware that if this is considered valid by enough people his commentaries about the deficiencies with the AR approach go nowhere. Consequently, he again uses the Karl Rove approach and turns an advantage on its head, thereby making it into a disadvantage. According to him, nobody cares about live, unamplified sound any more, and so what AR did in the way of response contouring and wide-dispersion envelopment are bogus and wrong headed. That even if nobody in Mr. Zilch's electronic-sound world cares about live-music sound, it is clear that many people who come to this site to discuss speakers do.

Frankly, I have no problem with people liking what Mr. Zilch likes. It is a free country, and obviously there are designers out there who are happy to build to his (and their) specifications. However, there are also at least a few companies (there were more in the old days) that cater to those who like live acoustic-music performances, and it is patently unfair for Mr. Zilch to imply that they are throwbacks to an age of quaint attitudes.

Mr. Zilch is a strange bird, what with that JBL logo heading up so many of his posts, not to mention him managing to write 20,000+ posts here and on other chat-group sites. (I am a fast typist, with plenty to say at times, but I am pretty sure that to do that much posting I would have to build a toilet into my computer desk.) One wonders about the LBL connection, among other things. However, there is one thing nobody here needs to wonder about when it comes to the meaning of the word zilch:

The Oxford English Dictionary definition: A. n., slang (origin unknown), nothing, nil; B. adj., non-existent; C. v.t., defeat by preventing from scoring, zip.

I wonder if Mr. Zilch will try to turn those definitions on their heads, too.

Howard Ferstler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Over the past few days (or was it weeks, or even months?), a guy who's pen name happens to be Zilch (or is it Mr. Zilch?) has been making some very negative comments about certain often highly admired, classic AR speakers (particularly the AR-3a), and by implication, Roy Allison and Edgar Villchur.

Where? You're making this up to posture as "AR Defender."

That Mr. Zilch has shown up here at all, on a site devoted to "classic" products that he appears to not like at all, seems to be a bit odd.

My understanding is that this is a site for discussion of "East Coast" design, not a place of worship, and the validity of the various design approaches is certainly worthy of discussion here, as well as their implications. The contributions I have made to the knowledge base are clear, and there are more to come. Whether I like particular "Classic" products or not, and the extent to which I do, is apparent in what I do with them.

But, then again, Mr. Zilch is an odd character to begin with (bragging about his 20,000+ posts both here and on other sites is not something I would care to brag about), and so maybe he needs to vent. The series of debates has also involved information put forth by Dr. Floyd Toole in his recent book on loudspeakers and rooms, with Dr. Toole's views pretty much parallaling at least some of those put forth by Mr. Zilch.

You asked, I answered. It's certainly disingenuous to characterize my work as that of a nut case, given that you have never reviewed it, but instead, have stated that you have no desire or intention of doing so.

1. Mr. Zilch dismisses the original "live vs recorded" concerts presented by Ed Villchur in the 1960s as basically a series of showboating"stunts" that do no more to prove that AR speakers (specifically the AR-3) were, and are, decent performers than the demonstations given by Thomas Edison proved that his acoustic phonographs were as realistic sounding as a live ensemble.

It is obviously impossible to argue this point objectively with Mr. Zilch (even though some others here who have also discussed the issue attended some of those AR demos, including those done by Victor Campos at a later date), since the opinions involved would have to be subjective at best. Mr. Zilch did not attend the concerts (nor has he offered up info on any of the companies he admires doing demos of the same kind), and so his own opinion actually amounts to nothing. (Dr. Toole also did not attend them, which means that his dismissal of them in his book is about as vacuous as those outlined by Mr. Zilch.) Even if the AR-3 speakers only did a fair job of replicating the sound of the ensemble (although many serious audio buffs and audio journalists attending were solidly impressed), it is hard to believe that speakers with response curves as ragged as those illustrated by Mr. Zilch (and Dr. Toole) would be able to thoroughly wow so many different audio buffs. Those demos had a lot to do with the success AR enjoyed in the 1960s, and the corresponding response-curve proofs illustrated by both Mr. Zilch (here) and Dr. Toole (in his book) do more to show their wrong-headed approach to what matters with speaker sound than any weaknesses claimed by them regarding the performance of the AR-3.

Both Mr. Zilch and Dr. Toole would have a vested interest in successfully dismissing those concerts, because if what Villchur did was successful then the contentions of Mr. Zilch and many of the basic conclusions put forth by Dr. Toole in his book - are wrong.

Shall I quote you again telling the forum that many quality loudspeakers could do as well (or better, perhaps,) in LVR demos?

2. Mr. Zilch has culled some comments from an article Roy Allison had published in the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society back in the 1970s, and pretty much turned them on their heads. Basically, Allison not only validated the wide-angle performance of the AR-3a (particularly in the upper midrange and treble), but also showed that the reverberant field dominates over the direct field with good, wide-dispersion speakers properly located in a typical home listening room, at least if the listener is not sitting on top of the speakers and the room is not furnished like the inside of a mattress. Mr. Zilch continues to claim that what Allison proved was that it is the direct field that predominates, which will be judged as preposterous by anyone who has read the article. However, with the rather directional speakers Mr. Zilch seems to favor (even though he claims they are wide dispersing, in spite of documentation both he and I have posted) it might just be possible for the direct field to dominate under some conditions.

I have yet to detail the alternate interpretation of the data. On the other hand, you appear steadfastly committed to NOT measuring the fields in your own listening space to ascertain the actual balance of direct vs. reverberant sound.

Basically, Mr. Zilch has taken what amounts to a design defect with his favored models and tried to turn it into an advantage, and has attempted to use Roy Allison's own research to prove his point. Note that the preprint version of this article is now available on the Classic Speakers site (check the "recent updates" sidebar on the home page to access this large PDF file), and the article goes out of its way to prove that both Mr. Zilch and Dr. Toole are mistaken in many ways about the reverberant field and the performance of wide-dispersion speakers in real-world listening rooms. It did this long before Mr. Zilch and Dr. Toole began to formulate their counterpoint ideas. The Allison article draft eclipses any "research" done by Mr. Zilch or any of those people he claims know the score when it comes to loudspeaker sound.

Science, the industry, and the marketplace have all long-since discredited this vintage design approach. I do, however, appreciate your crediting me with responsibility for this.

3. Mr. Zilch has used another Rove tactic to reverse-engineer another advantage of the classic AR approach to speaker design, with his comments elsewhere about how nobody cares whether speakers manage to simulate live, concert-hall sound any more. Again, this is one of the strong points of the AR design approach, and Mr. Zilch is aware that if this is considered valid by enough people his commentaries about the deficiencies with the AR approach go nowhere. Consequently, he again uses the Karl Rove approach and turns an advantage on its head, thereby making it into a disadvantage. According to him, nobody cares about live, unamplified sound any more, and so what AR did in the way of response contouring and wide-dispersion envelopment are bogus and wrong headed. That even if nobody in Mr. Zilch's electronic-sound world cares about live-music sound, it is clear that many people who come to this site to discuss speakers do.

The design focus of vintage ARs is less relevant today than it was during a time when "Hi-fi" ended at 8 kHz. Many readers come to this site desiring to discover how they might be made to perform more in keeping with contemporary listening standards and tastes. By being attentive to changes in the marketplace, Kloss went on to bury AR with Advent. Allison, on the other hand, stuck with the mantra, and succeeded in postponing the inevitable. There are options.

Frankly, I have no problem with people liking what Mr. Zilch likes. It is a free country, and obviously there are designers out there who are happy to build to his (and their) specifications. However, there are also at least a few companies (there were more in the old days) that cater to those who like live acoustic-music performances, and it is patently unfair for Mr. Zilch to imply that they are throwbacks to an age of quaint attitudes.

It's important to understand what they ARE, and these discussions have contributed substantial insight.

However, there is one thing nobody here needs to wonder about when it comes to the meaning of the word zilch:

The Oxford English Dictionary definition: A. n., slang (origin unknown), nothing, nil; B. adj., non-existent; C. v.t., defeat by preventing from scoring, zip.

I wonder if Mr. Zilch will try to turn those definitions on their heads, too.

"Dr. Zip" to you, Howard; at least make it entertaining.... :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys:

Please dial it back for a while until I have a more appropriate forum setup for this type of discussion. I really don't want to censor anyone unless I absolutely have to but on the other hand I don't want the forum turned into a battleground. I hope to have time this weekend to sort out the moderation issues.

Thanks,

Mark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The moderator (webmaster) has indicated that we should dial it down a bit, and I agree. Still some friendly points need to be made, given that I have kind of taken it upon myself to defend the AR and Allison approach against a contrary point of view that misstates what those two gentlemen both wrote and did.

First, yes this is a site where the East Coast sound is discussed, such as it is. However, rather than discuss you decided to attack, and made a point of denigrating the work of both Villchur and Allison, basically calling the former's live-vs-recorded demos marketing scams, and totally misinterpreting the latter's major paper on the sound of speakers in home listening rooms. And while I never have reviewed any of your work elsewhere, I have reviewed it here and I did not like what I read.

As for me saying that any number of other good speakers could do as well as the AR-3 in those demos, well, yes, I did say that. The AR-3a could do as well, as could the LST and any of the three-way Allison models, although the super-wide dispersing models might require different speaker positioning from what Villchur did with the AR-3. And I suppose many other quality brands (Dunlavy, Waveform, NHT, KEF, Atlantic Technology, etc. could also do as well). The point was not that any number of good speakers could pull it off, but that you indicated that the AR-3 did not, and that those who thought it could when they heard the demos were naive yahoos with leg-slapping responses to what they were hearing. Incidentally, Roy Allison himself has told me that quality speakers have been available for years that could perform pretty much subjectively perfect with maybe a bit of EQ to help out. Note that in this case "perfect" did not mean that they could simulate a large area hall spce in a small home listening room. It meant that within space constraints the speakers could subjectively deliver a perfect reproduction of the input signal. This would also include concerts like what Villchur did.

As for measuring the balance between direct and reverberant fields in my own listening rooms, I decided that was not necessary after reading Allison's rather definitive work in his preprint paper. If that cannot convince somebody there is no convincing them of much of anything else, either. I have measured speakers in there, by the way, and posted a number of curves on the Allison discussion group section at this site. The postings also include a description of how they were done, and also discusses their limitations.

I have yet to see where science has discredited the "vintage design" approach, as you call it. Indeed, the vintage design approach is what was discredited by the Villchur and Allison (and Mark Davis) approach decades ago. And I believe that earlier vintage approach is what you are lionizing in your analyses. I am not, in any case, giving you credit for anything as it applies to analyzing the downturn in business with either Allison or AR. Rather, you are merely reflecting the views of some individuals who continue to have the vintage approach, even though current musical taste seems to prefer analytical sound in preference to realistic sound as it would behave in a live, acoustic-instrument performance. As for the marketplace determining anything, AR started to go downhill after Allison left, as the company started to cater to less refined musical tastes. While Allison Acoustics did eventually fail, prior to the early 80s economic downturn they were doing well (sixth biggest in the country, so I am told), with a sizeable chunk of their goods being sold in Europe. The failure of the company later on had more to do with economics than with any design approach weaknesses. And Advent never buried AR, at least while Allison was in charge.

Forgive me making fun of your pen name. I am sure you think it means something different from the dictionary definition.

Howard Ferstler

"Roy Allison himself has told me that quality speakers have been available for years that could perform pretty much subjectively perfect with maybe a bit of EQ to help out."

Before 1989 when I began experimenting with improving speaker performance, I probably would have agreed. Now I am virtually certain it cannot be done, at least not by anything currently on the market. In a realtively small acoustically live room (about 4000 cubic feet) with the walls about 30-40% glass windows (on three sides) a low pile burbur carpet over plywood and the rest sheetrock (Standard Toll Brothers music conservatory) I can get the timbre of the re-engineered AR9s a dead ringer for the Steinway M on some recordings and that includes the the reflected high frequencies (now well over 95% propagated indirectly, but the difference in propagation at frequencies between 200 hz and 6Khz gives the speakers away, the speakers being direct radiators at those frequencies, the Steinway being largely an indirect radiator. The subjective difference listening critically is that the Steinway fills one end of the room with sound just as any grand piano would, the speakers still sound like sound coming from boxes to a degree. You are in the predominantly reverberant field in that room by around 12 feet away from the speakers even at mid frequencies (at around 6" away above 6 khz.) In this regard the re-engineered Bose 901s would probably do a more credible job but they are in another room and moving them would require them to be re-engineered from scratch, an unpalatable prospect. Laughably, audiophiles who invited themselves over one day said they couldn't hear a difference. I think they were half deaf. (One even wore a hearing aid.) Another interesting difference is that when the Piano and speakers play at the same subjective loudness when heard within the room, the piano is much louder than the speakers when heard from the next room, another point of evidence in how differently the two propagate sound waves. I've noticed this consistently with other equipment and other musical instruments in other rooms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Still some friendly points need to be made....

I'm still waiting for the "friendly" part, of course. :rolleyes:

But what do listeners hear from the system? Do they perceive the total energy output, or do they perceive as the "frequency response" of the system whatever the direct-radiation output may be at the angle of their location relative to the system?

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/library...ld_in_home_lis/

Here's Allison's data; what is the answer to his question?

post-102716-1240425624.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The average power curve your illustrated has little to do with the question you asked, by the way.

No? It allegedly illustrates the very point of the paper, that the direct field is all but irrelevant, the total energy, i.e., the flat power response of wide-dispersion in an imaginary dominant reverberant field comprises what is actually heard in normal listening spaces.

Where'd it GO, Howard, that "total energy output" flat power response demonstrated in AR's "special" highly reverberant chamber? What's preposterous is the claim that's what listeners actually hear, as Allison's own data clearly illustrates, and the burden is now upon you to explain the very crux of your own argument away.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FACT is, Allison concedes that his sound power/reverberant field hypothesis did not hold up above the transition frequency, (I leave it for readers to determine just where that is,) and the wide dispersion of the midrange and tweeter are all but mooted in normal listening spaces with respect to their "normalizing" contribution to the spectral balance:

There is one obvious contaminant in the data: the effect of the average room absorption with frequency. Still, Fig. 34 does show the spectral distribution that will be obtained with the average of 16 AR-3a's at 22 locations in the average acoustical setting of 8 typical living rooms.

Allison and Toole obviously agree on the conclusion:

For a realistic assessment of loudspeaker spectral performance, it is clear, both types of response curves are needed: reververant energy response [for the lowest frequencies,] and anechoic response curves to investigate directivity [of all else]. Anechoic polar curves would do nicely for that. [Emphasis original.]

In your zeal to find approbation of your own personal perferences, Howard, you have read far more into Allison's paper than it actually contains....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I again ask that you submit some photos of your own system(s) so that we (me and other posters who have submitted photos at times to inform members) can see just what is required to get the kind of exemplary performance you say the AR-3a lacks. A guy with your knowledge and background must have a seriously killer audio rig.

That would be nice Zilch. Most here including me have shown our setups. Mine is very modest. And as you know I like my AR's with SS and JBL's (albeit toned down in mids and hi's) with tubes.

In fact I just hooked up that Eico HF-81 Peter lent me this week. Oh man is this one sweet integrated amp! Kicks my Sui 9090DB/Fisher tube amp combo's but handily. Though I suspect a niver preamp with the Fisher would be closer - now that I'[ve heard this I have to start looking for an Eico.

I remeber reading Peter's review a few years ago on the Eici. It really is magical. Need to try my KLH 6's with it. Too busy now listening to this great sound :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have any nicer pics of the Eico I built 50 years ago, Shacky, but it's still here with me, and I do fire it up now and then.... :rolleyes:

post-102716-1240524137.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have any nicer pics of the Eico I built 50 years ago, Shacky, but it's still here with me, and I do fire it up now and then.... :rolleyes:

What OP tubes are in your Eico? I hope you are listening to that regularly. This Eico HF-81 (I think that's the model) is killer. One of my favorite albums is Pat Metheny First Circle. The last track Praise can be irritating on lesser setups. On this is is smooth as silk. Not that that's my guide. All the other wonderful songs are like listening to them new again.

Another one of my favorite albums is Jack Jezzro Brazilian Nights. Great Brazilian jazz guitar. I think the musicians and production on this are exemplary. I've listened to these albums over and over and they never sounded as good as with this little Eico.

Though I just realized as I was typing and the last track finished, I have some pulsing interference. It's my kitchen refridgerator. I heard the refrigerator kick off and it stopped.

Looks like it's time to set up a dedicated power line to my system. OK so new shopping list:

Material to run dedicated power line to living room stereo.

Eico int amp

Restoration of said Eico amp

I need more money!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What OP tubes are in your Eico?

It's an HF-87, Shacky, and those are the original Mullard EL34s.

We didn't play our "Stereos" much in the olden days; I didn't have a tuner until several years later, after multiplex became available.... :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The paper basically concludes that the wider and smoother the dispersion, the better.

It didn't conclude that at all, Howard, rather, instead demonstrated that attempting to control the spectral balance via wide dispersion is largely ineffective; if we put the room in charge at higher frequencies with hemispherical dispersion, the room will dominate what we hear in typical home listening spaces, selectively absorbing and attenuating the output more and more at successively higher frequencies. The reason AR3a's are deemed "dull" by many listeners is clearly shown: fully 75% of the "flat" power response is gone by 8 kHz, and an octave higher, at 16 kHz, it's down 90%; there's effectively nobody home above there in the living rooms studied.

What Allison's paper DID conclude, which you have kindly now made available for all to read for themselves is:

In the light of these findings, we believe that typical operating settings for loudspeaker high frequency balance controls should be well below the settings which produce flat acoustic energy output, if the objective is a spectrum similar to that produced at a concert hall seat. In view of the variations found in both living-room and concert hall frequency balance, and the manner in which these variations occur, we think that home listeners should be encouraged to make more liberal use of amplifier tone controls.

Your presumption that the paper somehow indicates that wide dispersion in general, or AR3a in particular, is "better" does not stand up to scrutiny. Toole tells us what we like about AR3a's; it is something other than what you understand and believe that to be, and Allison gives him his cue:

We are convinced that home music listeners perceive the spectral balance as the sum of the direct and reverberant fields, and that the very small time differences between them have no effect on this perception of balance. In other words, directional perception based on precedence is carried on by a different mechanism than operates for the judgment of spectral balance.

Contrary to common perception, spraying the room with acoustic energy does not generate a soundstage with expanded source width except as an artifact, and it's not necessary to put the room in control of the spectral balance to achieve the result we all enjoy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what might that be?

Spaciousness or spatial impression, Shacky, as achieved via an expanded Apparent Source Width (ASW).

Given the ability to control that, listeners will enhance it far beyond rational or realistic levels for their listening pleasure. Think Bose 901....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And is it truly what "we" like including you?

You know what my mains are, Shacky, and if you look them up, you will discover that enhanced ambience is a featured element, yes.

I am not the focused-image headphone listener Howard makes me out to be.

[Don't be revealing what those might be, though; I am not here to promote my own preferences, rather, more to discover them, just like most everyone else.... ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would indeed be proud to have such nice systems as yours, Howard, but what either of us has and what we personally like or dislike are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... what we personally like or dislike are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand....

and where do you rank your personal preference in sound against "the matter at hand"?

to me measurements and spec's are only a starting point. most important, regardless of anything else, is the sound. if it sounds good then what else matters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and where do you rank your personal preference in sound against "the matter at hand"?

to me measurements and spec's are only a starting point. most important, regardless of anything else, is the sound. if it sounds good then what else matters?

What matters for some of us, is how to make it sound better - this requires analysis.

Many scientists and engineers have been working on the problem for ages, as Ken and I

have pointed out. Some here demonstrate that they are not up to date nearly everytime

they post.

Pete B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and where do you rank your personal preference in sound against "the matter at hand"?
You are mixing subjective with objective here. I can't resolve your subject[ive] concerns, I can only talk about the "right" thing to do based on the data that we have.
Omni is a disaster in a small room with wall reflections....
If you want a loudspeaker system that is "room compatible" then a waveguide is required no matter what SPL you use. Nothing is less "room compatible" than an omni loudspeaker which sees all of the room's flaws.
This is precisely where the speaker and room have to work together to achieve the right balance of direct to refections delay and spectral balance between the direct sound and the reverberant sound. Only a C[onstant] D[irectivity] device of narrow directivity can do this. Nothing else works.

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread....mp;pagenumber=1

********

If it sounds good then what else matters?

How 'bout whether it IS good or not?

You say it sounds good, another says it sounds bad. Who are others to believe?

The answer lies elsewhere. There are facts more definitive than merely that Howard likes Allisons better.

[i'm on your side in this.... :lol: ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed. I am just curious, as are several other members of our little group.

Howard Ferstler

You've asked how many times? Zilch refused, which he has a right to do, yet you

cannot seem to take no for an answer. I won't comment on how that comes across.

Pete B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What matters for some of us, is how to make it sound better - this requires analysis.

Many scientists and engineers have been working on the problem for ages, as Ken and I

have pointed out. Some here demonstrate that they are not up to date nearly everytime

they post.

Pete B.

Pete,

You called me rude the other day and you were correct. But now you are acting like an techno snob and that's not much better. How dare you suggest that those (and I assume I would fall into your grouping) that don't know as much as you or Ken aren't qualified to express how good a piece of audio gear is simply from the experience of listening to it - without understanding all the science behind it.

Yes there will always be preferences, and gear that sound better in one listening space or another or one type of music over another. But does my not understanding the technical design of the Eico HF-81 Pete lent me prevent me from sharing how great I think it sounds? IS that not confirmation of all the technical details in action?

Come on! As Carl is so fond of saying "It's all about the music". It's not who knows as much about this industry as Pete B, or Ken, or even Zilch. I do not pretend to know as much as you guys do. But I do know what quality music sounds like to me. And I've found a new level with this Eico HF-81. It's openned up a whole new level of sound performance to me. One that I will now have to chase with my own gear. And I don't need to open the books or read Toole et al to know what I like.

And before you say it Zilch - yes what Shacky like is very important to Shacky. It's everything to me. Do you not choose to listen to your gear becasue of the way it sounds to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've asked how many times? Zilch refused, which he has a right to do, yet you

cannot seem to take no for an answer. I won't comment on how that comes across.

Pete B.

If Zich didn't make as many qualitative comments as he does, this would not be an issue. But since that is not the case let Zich fend for himself as he brings this onto himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pete,

You called me rude the other day and you were correct. But now you are acting like an techno snob and that's not much better. How dare you suggest that those (and I assume I would fall into your grouping) that don't know as much as you or Ken aren't qualified to express how good a piece of audio gear is simply from the experience of listening to it - without understanding all the science behind it.

Yes there will always be preferences, and gear that sound better in one listening space or another or one type of music over another. But does my not understanding the technical design of the Eico HF-81 Pete lent me prevent me from sharing how great I think it sounds? IS that not confirmation of all the technical details in action?

Come on! As Carl is so fond of saying "It's all about the music". It's not who knows as much about this industry as Pete B, or Ken, or even Zilch. I do not pretend to know as much as you guys do. But I do know what quality music sounds like to me. And I've found a new level with this Eico HF-81. It's openned up a whole new level of sound performance to me. One that I will now have to chase with my own gear. And I don't need to open the books or read Toole et al to know what I like.

And before you say it Zilch - yes what Shacky like is very important to Shacky. It's everything to me. Do you not choose to listen to your gear becasue of the way it sounds to you?

Try to read what I write and not put your own spin on it. You can express your opinion about anything

you like. My point is that because you "like" a speaker, does not mean that the technical flaws do not

exist. Which is what you seem to be demanding that we accept. No, my point is that you should not

force your opinion that because you like it, the techincal flaws either do not exist or do not matter. I

_can_ hear them, and they matter to me.

You seem to demand that we accept your position that if it sounds good it is good. Now I make

another point that some of us want to do better, we enjoy the analysis, and instead of trying to

understand our position you call me a snob. If the fact is that you have not done the research,

then it is simply a fact and you should accept it, or go do the reading.

The net is a waste of time, people who are insecure about their preferences come here and want

to be validated. Demand to be validated. As a matter of fact, you and perhaps others, derailed Ken's

interesting thread by taking it off topic. Are you afraid to learn something new that might undermine

your firm (rigid) beliefs?

Where do some people here get the idea that because they like something, they have a right to

demand that intellectual conversation about the flaws of their object of affection stop? This is not

a subjective only site, in fact many here point out the science behind the design of AR products.

Ah .... whatever ... I'm off for tonight ...

Pete B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...