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

[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.

I'm commenting about how I see it as mainly an observer of this rediculous exchange.

I have a right, particularly considering how some mouth off here.

[Zilch]

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?

I don't believe Pete is suggesting that there is anything amiss with liking what we like, Shacky, rather that there is MORE to this which is of interest to others, such as him and myself.

The assertion implicit in Dingus's question is that there is nothing more that matters than what we like. There IS, more, and plenty, and seeking to deny that is an insult to those of us whose primary interests lie there....

[Pete B]

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?

"yes what Shacky like is very important to Shacky"

and you're going to shove it in our faces even after we've said you have a right to like what you like,

that does not mean that the flaws do not exist. And it does not mean that we should be censored

when trying to discuss them.

[Shacky]

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,

Please re-read then tell me I'm putting spin on your post.

I realize you, Zilch and thousands of others care very little what Shacky likes. But all the scienctific work in the past 50 years still can' define true quality in audio. I respect the science. I don't demean the science. I and others just point out that there is still an art to this field. Qualities of performance that can not be measured outside of human ears.

And so in that respect what each of us feel sounds good is important. It is the ultimate arbitrage in this industry.

[Pete B]

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.

Have you heard one (really a pair) of these, push-pull 807s in triode mode, Peerless

output transformer?

Do you know what it is? This is mine, unrestored at this point:

http://baselaudiolabs.googlepages.com/Williamson3.JPG

You've never heard my Harman Kardon Citation II, this is not mine, but it is a nice picture:

http://www.quadesl.com/refurb/refurb_hkCitation2.html

But I've done better, this is a 200W/ch amp I started building from scratch when I was 16 years

old, finished it around 18 years old when I had access to some difficult to find parts. That is a

Hafler DH-500 on top of it:

http://baselaudiolabs.googlepages.com/PLB-big_amp.jpg

So gentlemen, show me, what have you built from scratch?

You see, I can play your game if I want. What I do know is that the forum is not about me, so I

don't usually come here offering pictures, and demanding others accept my opinions, because it

is about AR - the good and the bad.

Pete B.

[Pete B]

Pete,

Please re-read then tell me I'm putting spin on your post.

I did ... you put a (flawed) spin on my post.

[Shacky]

So Pete, are you suggesting this forum should not include how AR speakers perform? Or that only their measured performance rises to the ocasion?

Things have been getting out of hand lately on CSP postings. Maybe it's the economy. Spring? I don't know but I know a diss when I see one - albeit it wasn't directed personally at me.

The idea that folks need to be on your level of discussing Toole, Allison or Joe Schmoe to be "worthy" is egotistical garbage.

So yes asking someone what their preferences and listening setups are are very germain to this forum. We are not all techo geeks.

[Shacky]

I did ... you put a (flawed) spin on my post.

You haen't convince me any different.

[Zilch]

I know a diss when I see one.

You're making it up, Shacky. There's no assault here, rather, merely a quest for knowledge. Believe it or not, most people come here for facts, as CSP is renowned for having them.

After enduring post after post, page after page, indeed, thread after thread of gratuitous abuse, in support of my thesis, I have posted AR3a performance as the designer himself determined and presented it 40 years ago @ #6. Accept it or dismiss it; either way, it's a wrap....

[dingus]

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

********

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.... ]

speaking for myself, the answer lies where it always has been, with ones personal preference. something you cant get from measurements and spec's is a persons response to the euphonic quality of sound. i've heard too many examples of average equipment delivering spectacular sound to rely on the figures to tell me what is good and what isnt.

[dingus]

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.

if thats where your interest lies, then sure. my interests is enjoying these wonderful pieces of equipment for what they are, not for what they could or might be. as for being up to date i am quite content to leave that to the experts. the reason i stuck my nose into this conversation is that it seemed, at least to me, that the most critical point is being overlooked, and that is the sound, not the spec.

[dingus]

...

The assertion implicit in Dingus's question is that there is nothing more that matters than what we like. There IS, more, and plenty, and seeking to deny that is an insult to those of us whose primary interests lie there....

no, its what i like, you like your own thing. i mean no insult, but i gain no listening pleasure from looking at a graph or interpreting data.

[dingus]

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

exist.

every speaker ever made has its technical/design flaws, this is not a basis for disqualifying a speakers ability to deliver good sound.

... 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.

its different strokes dude, i do my research with my ears.

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.

i can only assert that in my opinion, how it sounds to me is the most important factor. now if i were a speaker designer or had technical interests i would probably hold a different opinion. for some the technical aspects are paramount, for others, not so much.

[Shacky]

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.

Pete B.

Nor is this an objective only site. You miss the elemental point of this hobby if you ignore qualitative sound. And it's the aspect that allows many who don't have in depth technical knowledge enjoy and particpate in this discussion.

I'm not criticizing your superior technical knowledge. Only your assertion that it somehow elevates you to a higher importance than those who discuss how something sounds.

[Pete B]

Nor is this an objective only site. You miss the elemental point of this hobby if you ignore qualitative sound. And it's the aspect that allows many who don't have in depth technical knowledge enjoy and particpate in this discussion.

I'm not criticizing your superior technical knowledge. Only your assertion that it somehow elevates you to a higher importance than those who discuss how something sounds.

You continue to put a spin on my views and interaction here and that makes discussion with you

nearly impossible - I don't have time to correct every comment that you make. The fact is that

I have no problem with anyone commenting about how they like the sound of their equipment.

I have commented several times about how I enjoy reading Frank Marsi's writeups about his listening

sessions:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...;hl=frank+marsi

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...;hl=frank+marsi

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...ost&p=58191

However, Zilch comes here and makes a technical comment about the performance and

several people with mainly subjective opinions disrupt the discussions with their only analysis

being - I like the way they sound, you must be wrong.

Indeed, it is time consuming to take many measurements and in some cases I go by my own

opinion of the sound as I did - and clearly stated - with the BSC circuit for the Large Advents.

Clearly, you misrepresent my true interaction here in your comments above.

[Shacky]

Pete,

You still go back to qualifying subjective comments as disruptive. If technical comments suggest qualitative outcomes then the discusion will naturally come back around in that direction. Maybe it's best you just accept the comments in an open forum like this and move on rather than waste time citing how "back of the bus" (

my words not your) they and their posters are.

[Zilch]

Well I certainly do not wish to wear out my welcome nor miss the opportunity to gain from future uninterupted threads. In fact I contacted the moderators earlier this week asking for their intercession even against myself - a time out of sorts for the 2 parties including me. As you can see it wasn't sucessful.

So I'll steer clear of disrupting any further - even upon the inevitable jab coming from Mr Z shortly.

Lost your way again, Shacky, or is it martyrdom you seek, this time with Pete?

[Guest winters860]

So let me see if I can wrap up the debate thus far:

Zilch (predictably): "ARs aren't very good speakers. You like them? That's perfectly okay and I don't mind a bit, as long as you acknowledge A) Your hearing isn't very good or B ) You have bad taste in speakers. There is no option C). Good speakers are those that test well under 100% totally objective measurement at Zilchlab. So it is written, so shall it be."

Selected CSP AR Aficionados (predictably): WHARRGARBL!

Do I have a pretty good grasp on that?

How in the hell has it been dragged out this many topics and posts? Weren't all parties told to knock it off? What more do they hope to achieve?

[Carlspeak]

I agree with winters... It is indeed time to wrap it up. This thread has degenerated into a classic subjectivist vs objectivist P*****g contest that nobody is going to win and, also not provide any constructive help for anyone wasting their time reading it.

[Shacky]

I do understand this was getting out of hand on other threads with different topics. But this particular one is set up for just this discusion:

Howard Ferstler, Zilch, and the AR 3a.[/b]

If that isn't a setup for just this I don't know what is.

Then you have Pete throwing a hissy fit about subjective bantar entering the equation. It is nuts and I recognize I'm as guilty as anyone for prolonging it. As long as it's kept respectable and not personal I don't really see the harm in it.

[Zilch]

Do I have a pretty good grasp on that?

No. I never said ANY of that. The discussion is about the validity of perceptions relating to AR technical design, not whether anyone likes the result or not. The rest is irrelevant make-believe.

I measured AR3a's. My measurements are virtually identical to those published by Allison and Berkovitz 40 years ago. Others here are also measuring ARs with similar findings. We are discussing what it means, and some here obviously don't want to know, as this conflicts with their understanding and beliefs.

If we want to know whether the HiVi Q1R is a suitable substitute for the stock AR3a tweeter, that must be assessed in light of the performance facts, and the context of its intended function, just as was the case with RoyC's modified L-pad replacement for the troublesome stock Aetna-Pollack potentiometer.

Are YOU prepared to do this, Winters? Let me caution you, though, there's far more effort required to accomplish it than a mere 30 seconds of listening to make the determination. Shacky likes it; is that good enough? Are you and everyone else willing to go with that for the next 40 years?

Zilch is to be commended for the putting in an extraordinary amount of work on the data he's recently collected on the AR-3a, especially since in stock form, I don't think he likes it very much. His thread on measurements is every bit as valuable to fans of this speaker as the CSP "Restoring the AR-3a" document.

I used to be able to get really fired up on this subject. Now, not so much.

A couple of months ago, I completed my AR-3a project using AR-11 tweeters. Though I like them a lot, I concluded my AR-90 are better speakers all the way around (if, I'll admit, not as pretty). This shouldn't surprise anyone. They were designed a decade later and sold at a significantly higher price point.

Nonetheless, the spell is broken. I just can't work up the necessary gumption anymore to tell people what they should or shouldn't do with their old ARs. I hope that whatever you decide, it works out.

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthrea...615#post2596615

********

Here are the insights I believe these discussions have produced, in summary:

1) AR3a is not accurate by contemporary standards, rather, its “concert hall” coloration is instead no less inaccurate than the West Coast loudspeakers against which it is frequently contrasted. Any desire to have AR3a’s perform differently, such as more in keeping with contemporary listening tastes, is tantamount to a comprehensive redesign.

2) Villchur’s live vs. recorded demos, frequently cited as evidence of AR3/3a accuracy, were actually contrived promotional showboating; most quality loudspeakers could perform as well or better under similar conditions. (Ferstler)

3) AR3a was not designed by “ear,” as some suggest; Villchur was primarily a scientist, and measurements were integral to the AR design process.

4) While AR3a’s wide-dispersion tweeter was a pioneering design, contrary to common perception, it has long since been eclipsed by more modern approaches to constant directivity, and many of its advantages were significantly compromised by its installation in an acoustically poor cabinet alignment.

5) AR3a's “max dispersion, flat power response” approach further proved self-defeating as means to achieve spectral balance in typical home listening spaces; placing the room in control above the transition frequency allows it to selectively absorb upper midrange and high frequency energy in full measure. See Allison and Berkovitz (1970, 1972).

[Guest winters860]

No. I never said ANY of that. The discussion is about the validity of perceptions relating to AR design. The rest is make-believe.

True. I'm extrapolating. I'm pretty sure nobody ever actually said "WHARRGARBL" either.

I measured AR3a's. My measurements are virtually identical to those published by Allison and Berkovitz 40 years ago.

I commend you for it. I've done so in quarters both public and private.

Nonetheless, this is getting completely ridiculous. You swept in here amongst a bunch of AR fans, carefully dancing around your central premise of "The facts are in AND YOU'RE WRONG!"

Certain parties took the bait hook line and sinker.

What did you hope to prove? You've seen the mess AK's AR threads turn into when you show up to trash them. Was the present hembozzle on CSP what you had in mind? Are you amused?

Will somebody out there look at the AR-3a's comparatively ragged response and say "What a fool I've been these last 40 years enjoying these speakers!"? Will you successfully get people to quit crowing about their speakers you obviously hold in special disdain? If the answer to these two questions is no, then I have to conclude that you're deliberately trolling AR fans and that all the work you've done has been toward that goal.

Wasn't it last year you said that the best use for vintage ARs was to raid the inductors for magnet wire? Forgive me if I don't have the post at my fingertips.

[Shacky]

No. I never said ANY of that. The discussion is about the validity of perceptions relating to AR design. The rest is make-believe.

I measured AR3a's. My measurements are virtually identical to those published by Allison and Berkovitz 40 years ago. Others here are also measuring ARs with similar findings. We are discussing what it means, and some here obviously don't want to know, as this conflicts with their understanding and beliefs.

Are YOU prepared to do this, Winters? Let me caution you, though, there's far more effort required to accomplish it than a mere 30 seconds of listening to make the determination. Shacky likes it; is that good enough? Are you and everyone else willing to go with that for the next 40 years?

If your measurements are the same as those from 40 years ago - what has been added to the AR 3a scientific discussion?

Nothing as far as I see it. Only criticism of their demonstrations which if you beleive was "contrived" really has nothing to do with the fact that so many cherish these speakers - and for 40 years.

I would have far less problems with your extrapolations if they went something like:

The AR 3a's rolled off top end is much different from todays speakers yet delivers a certain (fill in the blank) which some prefer and others dislike.

VS making assumptive remarks about contrived demos or inaccuracy - which to me gets philosophical. If the AR 3a sounds more like a live concert hall to classic music lovers is it not then more "accurate"? I realize I'm probably openning a can of worms here.

[Shacky]

Here are the insights I believe these discussions have produced, in summary:

1) AR3a is not accurate by contemporary standards, rather, its “concert hall” coloration is instead no less inaccurate than the West Coast loudspeakers against which it is frequently contrasted. Any desire to have AR3a’s perform differently, such as more in keeping with contemporary listening tastes, is tantamount to a comprehensive redesign.

2) Villchur’s live vs. recorded demos, frequently cited as evidence of AR3/3a accuracy, were actually contrived promotional showboating; most quality loudspeakers could perform as well or better under similar conditions.

3) AR3a was not designed by “ear,” as some suggest; Villchur was primarily a scientist, and measurements were integral to the AR design process.

4) While AR3a’s wide-dispersion tweeter was a pioneering design, contrary to common perception, it has long since been eclipsed by more modern approaches to constant directivity, and many of its advantages were significantly compromised with its installation in an acoustically poor cabinet alignment.

5) AR3a's “max dispersion, flat power response” approach further proved self-defeating as means to achieve spectral balance in typical home listening spaces; placing the room in control above the transition frequency allows it to selectively absorb upper midrange and high frequency energy in full measure. See Allison and Berkovitz (1970, 1972).

1) What speaker wouldn't need a resdesign to sound different?

2) Contrived promotional showboating. Now that's a non qualitative comment isn't it? You can't make such broad sweeping comments, say they are fact, then expect orhters to close the door on it becasue you have deemed it as such.

3) I think I'm the only one here who mistakenly said they were designed by ear and have given my exhaustive apologies. So for you to take that comment and keep throwing it in the faces of those reading this just isn't fair. The AR speakers (like KLH to follow) were designed with the best science available at the time, however, that design and its outcome was validated with the ear.

4) OK maybe the AR 3a isn't the "best" tweeter designed. But it's unique wide-dispersion has a lot to do with why so many including you are still talking about these speakers 40 years later. And why so many actually prefer to listen to it. It is far less fatiguing than current directional design tweeters. So who's to say that it is not "better" ?

5) You throw out some references after your interpretations like it no longer arguable. I'll leave others to pick the details apart but I'm sure many would argue that the AR 3a qualities gave it superior in-room performance. Concert hall demos asside, they sold well because they sounded so good in consumers listening spaces. If this speaker is so (you fill in the blank), why do restored versions sell upwards of $1,000 today?

[soundminded]

No. I never said ANY of that. The discussion is about the validity of perceptions relating to AR technical design, not whether anyone likes the result or not. The rest is make-believe.

I measured AR3a's. My measurements are virtually identical to those published by Allison and Berkovitz 40 years ago. Others here are also measuring ARs with similar findings. We are discussing what it means, and some here obviously don't want to know, as this conflicts with their understanding and beliefs.

If we want to know whether the HiVi Q1R is a suitable substitute for the stock AR3a tweeter, that must be assessed in light of the performance facts, and the context of its intended function, just as was the case with RoyC's modified L-pad replacement for the troublesome stock Aetna-Pollack potentiometer.

Are YOU prepared to do this, Winters? Let me caution you, though, there's far more effort required to accomplish it than a mere 30 seconds of listening to make the determination. Shacky likes it; is that good enough? Are you and everyone else willing to go with that for the next 40 years?

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthrea...615#post2596615

********

Here are the insights I believe these discussions have produced, in summary:

1) AR3a is not accurate by contemporary standards, rather, its “concert hall” coloration is instead no less inaccurate than the West Coast loudspeakers against which it is frequently contrasted. Any desire to have AR3a’s perform differently, such as more in keeping with contemporary listening tastes, is tantamount to a comprehensive redesign.

2) Villchur’s live vs. recorded demos, frequently cited as evidence of AR3/3a accuracy, were actually contrived promotional showboating; most quality loudspeakers could perform as well or better under similar conditions.

3) AR3a was not designed by “ear,” as some suggest; Villchur was primarily a scientist, and measurements were integral to the AR design process.

4) While AR3a’s wide-dispersion tweeter was a pioneering design, contrary to common perception, it has long since been eclipsed by more modern approaches to constant directivity, and many of its advantages were significantly compromised with its installation in an acoustically poor cabinet alignment.

5) AR3a's “max dispersion, flat power response” approach further proved self-defeating as means to achieve spectral balance in typical home listening spaces; placing the room in control above the transition frequency allows it to selectively absorb upper midrange and high frequency energy in full measure. See Allison and Berkovitz (1970, 1972).

"1) AR3a is not accurate by contemporary standards, rather, its “concert hall” coloration is instead no less inaccurate than the West Coast loudspeakers against which it is frequently contrasted. Any desire to have AR3a’s perform differently, such as more in keeping with contemporary listening tastes, is tantamount to a comprehensive redesign."

There are no accurate loudspeakers manufactured today. Not when judged against serious live music. I'm not talking about the kiddie music most people listen to, I'm talking about the real thing. The West Coast sound for listeners of classical music was unbearable. Its harsh shrill high frequencies all but unlistenable in a home. In a studio as a monitor it took a 31 band Altec Acousta-voice equalizer costing almost twice what an A7 or A7-500 did to flatten its frequency response. If you don't like the sound of Columbia 360 sound, these were the speakers they were mastered on and may explain why. For classical music, the JBL speakers were also a bomb. These speakers were designed for one purpose, to fill a theater with sound from puny amplifiers available in the 1940s and 1950s, not to accurately reproduce music in a home.

"2) Villchur’s live vs. recorded demos, frequently cited as evidence of AR3/3a accuracy, were actually contrived promotional showboating; most quality loudspeakers could perform as well or better under similar conditions."

I attended two of them. They were contrived. Nevertheless, nobody else ever proved they could come even close. Of those who tried, most didn't even know enough about sound to know how to properly prepare such a demonstration.

"3) AR3a was not designed by “ear,” as some suggest; Villchur was primarily a scientist, and measurements were integral to the AR design process."

At least he tried. Most of the competition was a joke. That is why AR3 and AR3a became the industry reference standard loudspeakers. No other speakers in history have ever been so universally adopted around the world as the best of its kind available. KLH Model 6 was designed by ear. It also measured superbly within its frequency range. For all those awful vinyl phonograph records made using Altecs, JBLs, University, and Tannoy speakers as monitors, its spectral balance may have been more suitable in complimenting their shortcomings.

"4) While AR3a’s wide-dispersion tweeter was a pioneering design, contrary to common perception, it has long since been eclipsed by more modern approaches to constant directivity, and many of its advantages were significantly compromised with its installation in an acoustically poor cabinet alignment."

The attempt to eliminate the listening room as a factor in home sound reproduction is inevitably a losing strategy. It can't be done. The only way to deal with the room is to understand it and engineer around it. Modern designers refuse to acknowledge that but even if they did, they don't have a clue as to how it actually works so they'd have no way to solve the problem. That's in part why they've reached a dead end. They don't even claim accuracy anymore. All they try to do is snow the market by advertising technobabble. As for cabinet alignment, the time aligned speaker of the 1970s has to be listed among the top ten audio frauds of all time right up there with exotic speaker wires and cryogenic vacuum tubes.

"5) AR3a's “max dispersion, flat power response” approach further proved self-defeating as means to achieve spectral balance in typical home listening spaces; placing the room in control above the transition frequency allows it to selectively absorb upper midrange and high frequency energy in full measure. See Allison and Berkovitz (1970, 1972)."

How fortunate low cost graphic equalizers appeared on the scene shortly afterwards to solve that problem. Too bad most audiophiles don't know how to use them properly. On the bright side, that allows me to buy them used in perfect condition cheaply whenever I need one.