Jump to content

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


Howard Ferstler

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Winters860 addressed the real problem here in post # 54 of this thread.

What's that, the "trolling" part?

The answer is at #58.

You have cherry picked items to suit your requirements.

I've quoted pretty much the entire paper at this point.

YOU pick 'em, Howard.

Begin by reading it.... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your animosity in regard to concert halls, not to mention towards the AR-3a, is telling. Just what kind of live music, if any, do you listen to in order to get an idea of just what is good and/or not good in the way of loudspeaker sound in decent rooms? And if a "dull" sound, as you describe it, does not relegate the AR-3a to "junk" status in your opinion I do not know what else could.

I am quoting Toole, Olson, and others as to their inherent coloration. Just like L100s, they are what they are, and there is value in knowing and understanding the basis of this, how we perceive them as such, and why we like whatever we do. That does not mean they are junk, necessarily. Head bangers are no less valid than classical concert enthusiasts.

I continue to be curious about just what it is that you are selling, and am just as curious as ever when it comes to what your own home-audio rig looks like. I find it remarkable that you are so secretive about it. Would a guy with a killer audio rig make technically related excuses for not posting pictures of it? Or would a wannabe guru with a pint-sized audio rig located in a closet-sized listening room make excuses of a different sort?

I have afforded you every opportunity to discover what I am "about," Howard, but you obviously prefer to conjure fantasies more consistent with your viewpoint. You can scope out Geddes, too, but it takes a bit of effort. Why bother, when it's so much easier simply to postulate that he listens in a padded cell...? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...If you would just set aside your personal bias and reread the paper, and Toole, and Geddes (if you have the stomach for it) as well, objectively, you just might discover what it is that you actually like about your Allisons.... :)

to me this is backward. does the sound change based on ones understanding of how it is reproduced? no, all the research and analysis in the world wont make the speakers sound any different. i can see how a better understand of the science may give one more or less appreciation for it, but that would be based on the sound it delivers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I have afforded you every opportunity to discover what I am "about,"...

from where i sit i cannot say who is "right" and who is "wrong" in this argument. what i can see is that Howard is direct, straightforward and to the point where you have referred to various sources on the net and elsewhere rather than to simply state your own proposition outright. this comes off as evasive and unnecessary when you could just as easily supply a direct answer to a direct question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to me this is backward. does the sound change based on ones understanding of how it is reproduced? no, all the research and analysis in the world wont make the speakers sound any different. i can see how a better understand of the science may give one more or less appreciation for it, but that would be based on the sound it delivers.

Not in an absolute sense, no, but to the extent that what we hear relies upon our cognitive understanding of what is going on, our perceptions might indeed be altered by a different one. Certainly, given the acknowledged influence of the interaction between the loudspeakers and the room upon how the system sounds, it is important that the understanding be "correct," if we are to intelligently manage it. Do the drapes matter? Shall I toe them in? How much? How far apart, and how close to the walls, side and front? Do they need to be on stands? How high? And, on a more macro level, how come Led Zep sounds like crap, and what do I need to do to "fix" that? Will EQ alone do it?

Then arise the questions relating to replacements and upgrades, e.g, does the HiVi Q1R have wide enough dispersion to functionally replicate the performance of the originals? Just how important IS the highly touted wide dispersion of the AR3a tweeter to how they sound? Do we need to alter the crossover to replicate the response curve as well, or is cabinet edge diffraction more responsible for what we hear? The answers to these questions may vary significantly depending upon whether there's an actual reverberant field at work here as opposed to an imaginary one, and to what extent that might be involved in the interplay. The probability of getting it "right" is greatly enhanced by knowing what we're doing as opposed to relying upon myth.

from where i sit i cannot say who is "right" and who is "wrong" in this argument. what i can see is that Howard is direct, straightforward and to the point where you have referred to various sources on the net and elsewhere rather than to simply state your own proposition outright. this comes off as evasive and unnecessary when you could just as easily supply a direct answer to a direct question.

I have provided such answers as I thus far understand them and as relate to the issues under discussion, and I can assure you that those answers do not rely upon anything which might be disclosed by photographs of my favorite system. I have also put Howard's perceptions, including his understanding of the very basis of them, the 1970 Allison & Berkovitz paper, to test, and it is easily seen that, despite his protests, he has moved substantially closer to appreciating, if not actually adopting, a more flexible point of view which embraces my own, as opposed to dismissing it as that of a crackpot with an AR-bashing agenda, which is where we started here.

The very premise of this thread is that Zilch is clueless. Now, at post #102, Howard may not be quite so certain that is the case.... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Closer to your understanding? Give me a break. I do note one area of weakening on your part. You mention that you have provided answers as you "thus far understand them," which tells me (Freudian slip at your end) that you may be harboring some doubts about many of the previous points of view you have embraced.

Sorry, Howard, no score. I am merely stating that, unlike you, I do not have all the answers.

As for showing us your system, that would be one way those here could better ascertain whether or not your facility allows you to actually measure speakers the way Allison and Berkovitz did and listen to them in a workable environment. In addition, you claim that you pretty much exactly replicated what they measured with your own measurements. I would like to know which anechoic chamber you used to get those similar direct-field measurements, which reverberant chamber you used to get the same power response measurements that they did, and what listening rooms you used to get the same kind of typical room curves that they did. After all, it is YOU who claimed to be able to replicate what they did.

I have provided the link to my work with AR3a. Alas, I cannot click it for you.

And, again, in order to know whether what you say about appreciating good speaker sound amounts to a hill of beans (after all, anybody who says the AR-3a delivers dated and "dull" sound ought to at the very least be auditioning them in a decent listening space that he was familiar with), it would be nice to see just what your own listening area and audio system look like. My take on this, given the tendency for audio buffs with killer rigs to happily show people pictures of them, is that you do NOT have a first-class arrangement, and are not about to reveal that fact to the group.

I did not say they were dull or dated. You're making stuff up, again, Howard. In fact, I have not said anything about how they sound to me, as that is irrelevant to the issues at hand.

Another point. You have made some pretty strong claims about speaker sound. So have I, and I am not afraid to attach my real name to my claims, even if some times behaving as I do gets me into literary hot water. (Yes, it has happened before.) How about you doing the same thing. Be a man and tell us who you are.

Sorry, Howard, your imaginings are far more entertaining, and you play a most excellent foil.

Finally, other than dismissing the Villchur live/recorded concerts out of hand, with no proof whatsoever to back up your claims that they were essentially worthless as anything but marketing tools, you have not done much to prove to anybody here that the AR-3a (and AR-3) systems were anything but exemplary performers, even by modern standards. Just WHAT was it about the concerts that tells you that they were worthless as speaker-quality demonstration tools?

I never suggested that they were anything other than exemplary performers, Howard, rather, merely what you and Allison have affirmed, that most any speaker could do as well under similar contrived conditions. Did AR show that any of their competitors could not do the same at the time? Do we know but that a Bose Wave Radio can not do it today?

How many times? Many times, and possibly many more, and yet this guy holds back from showing us something that a serious enthusiast with a really good audio rig would jump at the chance to do.

Please, Howard, post the pics of your rig again for us; you've plastered it all over this site, why stop now?

If he were a product reviewer for a major audio publication I could see the point. I remember that Julian Hirsch never let anybody know what his rig was like (although rumor had it that his main speakers, at least for some time, were AR-LST models), because he did not want to seem prejudiced towards any specific audio brand. However, Zilch is not a reviewer (well, at least he has not made that claim as an excuse), and so there is no practical reason I can see why he would not love to show off a system that, by the standards he has itemized here and there, would demonstrate that he not only has a lot to say about audio, but has also put his money where his mouth is. In other words, I would like to see the results of him walking the walk and not just talking the talk.

Along with the list of defunct periodicals that published your reviews.

And certainly he has a right to not show us any photos. (I am not the Gestapo.) However, given his stonewalling, I still have the right to suspect that his rig, such as it is, is pint sized and located in a room not much bigger than a closet. Heck, for all I know his main speakers are actually headphones.

Trust that my rig is bigger than yours, Howard. ;)

[And that what I don't even have connected is worth considerably more than any you have ever owned.... :D ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to me this is backward. does the sound change based on ones understanding of how it is reproduced? no, all the research and analysis in the world wont make the speakers sound any different. i can see how a better understand of the science may give one more or less appreciation for it, but that would be based on the sound it delivers.
Not in an absolute sense, no, but to the extent that what we hear relies upon our cognitive understanding of what is going on, our perceptions might indeed be altered by a different one.
that would be a psycho-acoustic phenomenon so in "an absolute sense" you are wrong on this point.
Certainly, given the acknowledged influence of the interaction between the loudspeakers and the room upon how the system sounds, it is important that the understanding be "correct," if we are to intelligently manage it. Do the drapes matter? Shall I toe them in? How much? How far apart, and how close to the walls, side and front? Do they need to be on stands? How high? And, on a more macro level, how come Led Zep sounds like crap, and what do I need to do to "fix" that? Will EQ alone do it?
thats speaker 101 which can be accomplished from nothing more than trial and error. again an in-depth understanding of the science behind the design provides no advantage to gaining better sound.
Then arise the questions relating to replacements and upgrades, e.g, does the HiVi Q1R have wide enough dispersion to functionally replicate the performance of the originals?
well which is it, the original or a modification? a modification creates something to which your earlier assertion of Howards potential appreciation of his Allisons does not apply. where then is the greater appreciation of a sound that remains unchanged from the original?
Just how important IS the highly touted wide dispersion of the AR3a tweeter to how they sound? Do we need to alter the crossover to replicate the response curve as well, or is cabinet edge diffraction more responsible for what we hear? The answers to these questions may vary significantly depending upon whether there's an actual reverberant field at work here as opposed to an imaginary one, and to what extent that might be involved in the interplay. The probability of getting it "right" is greatly enhanced by knowing what we're doing as opposed to relying upon myth.
as i understand it the myth is that some claim the performance of the AR3a is not truly what it is able to deliver based on the research and testing done by yourself and others that have gone before. if you have empirical evidence on this point then why does the debate continue? by not addressing specific points directly you have repeatedly introduced misdirection into your argument.
I have provided such answers as I thus far understand them and as relate to the issues under discussion...
you have yet to answer the first part of my question posed in post #26 ...
and where do you rank your personal preference in sound against "the matter at hand"?...
i followed the link you provided and was met with 13 or so pages of posts that had nothing to do with the question i asked. if its in there then i missed it. rather than supply another link, why not provide a simple and direct answer here? one thing you have repeatedly called for is transparency and honesty about the abilities and limitations of the AR3a. how about applying this same ethic to your argument and reply appropriately?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

that would be a psycho-acoustic phenomenon so in "an absolute sense" you are wrong on this point.

Please read more carefully. I wrote NOT in an absolute sense....

thats speaker 101 which can be accomplished from nothing more than trial and error. again an in-depth understanding of the science behind the design provides no advantage to gaining better sound.

No, huh? Perhaps better sound would be revealed by those who know what they are doing. There are professionals who do.

well which is it, the original or a modification? a modification creates something to which your earlier assertion of Howards potential appreciation of his Allisons does not apply. where then is the greater appreciation of a sound that remains unchanged from the original?

Should a replacement replicate the sound of the original in every detail? That is the issue.

as i understand it the myth is that some claim the performance of the AR3a is not truly what it is able to deliver based on the research and testing done by yourself and others that have gone before. if you have empirical evidence on this point then why does the debate continue? by not addressing specific points directly you have repeatedly introduced misdirection into your argument.

The objective measurements reveal what AR3a is able to deliver, confirming that which has been well-known to the marketplace for many years.

you have yet to answer the first part of my question posed in post #26 ....

Like Geddes, I'm an objectivist. I'll not state my opinion, because it is irrelevant, and I know that. Assume whatever suits your convenience, if you like, as Howard does.... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please read more carefully. I wrote NOT in an absolute sense....
and i wrote "in an absolute sense" that you are wrong on that particular point. no mistake there.
No, huh? Perhaps better sound would be revealed if you knew what your were doing.
just another dodge on your part. simple trial and error with speaker placement works.
We apparently have a reading comprehension problem. Should a replacement replicate the sound of the original in every detail? That is the issue.
you would be better served to keep your problems and your insults to yourself. the question on what should be achieved from a replicate depends on what the individual is trying to achieve.
The objective measurements reveal what AR3a is able to deliver, confirming that which has been well-known in the marketplace for many years.
the marketplace is hardly the place to look for objective evidence. the measurements are what they are, how does this knowledge translate to improving what the speaker is delivering?
Like Geddes, I'm an objectivist. You'll not have my opinion, because it is irrelevant, and I know that.
why sell yourself short? the only reason i am involved in this argument is that i do value my opinion of what i hear. if you dont value your own opinion then why do you bother?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

to me this is backward. does the sound change based on ones understanding of how it is reproduced? no, all the research and analysis in the world wont make the speakers sound any different. i can see how a better understand of the science may give one more or less appreciation for it, but that would be based on the sound it delivers.

Here here! I'm all for the science. Still - even the scientists here at CSP usually cite what they appreciate. I can't imagine anyone not listening to speakers and being open enough to share their likes and dislikes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and i wrote "in an absolute sense" that you are wrong on that particular point. no mistake there.

I'm sorry, I thought I saw quotation marks there. ;)

just another dodge on your part. simple trial and error with speaker placement works.

Understanding what you're doing has the potential of working better. Then again, if it doesn't matter....

the question on what should be achieved from a replicate depends on what the individual is trying to achieve.

I believe that's what I asked. Boggles the mind, don't it?

the marketplace is hardly the place to look for objective evidence. the measurements are what they are, how does this knowledge translate to improving what the speaker is delivering?

I have answered that question, several times now. It apparently translated to Allison and AR as well, but alas, the marketplace prevailed. The myth seeks to explain how it performs the way it does; the measurements provide the answers.

why sell yourself short? the only reason i am involved in this argument is that i do value my opinion of what i hear. if you don't value your own opinion then why do you bother?

Rest assured, like you, I hold my own preferences in the highest regard, but they simply have nothing to do with understanding what Allison & Berkovitz found or didn't, with respect to which, I cannot consider mine as any more significant than I do yours or anyone else's.

As Geddes suggests, I am not charged with reconciling the facts with your opinion of what you hear -- that's your job....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, I thought I saw quotation marks there. ;)

Understanding what you're doing has the potential of working better. Then again, if it doesn't matter....

I believe that's what I said. Boggles the mind, don't it?

I believe I have answered that question, several times now. It apparently translated to Allison and AR as well, but alas, the marketplace prevailed.

Rest assured, like you, I hold my own preferences in the highest regard; they simply have nothing to do with understanding what Allison & Berkovitz said or didn't, with respect to which, I cannot consider mine any more significant than I do yours or anyone else's.

*** points addressed inline ***

i thought my use of sarcastic mimicry was self evident.

as i stated earlier, room placement is speaker 101 which requires no scientific understanding. are you discounting the benefits of correct speaker placement arrived at via trial and error?

finally a definitive answer from you. if you would stated this simply and clearly you could have saved everyone a lot of time and argument.

what marketplace are you referring to? i made the assumption, perhaps incorrectly, that you were talking about the masses who bought the speakers. from that i opined that marketplace popularity in audio gear will not yield objective evidence any more than it will, say in popular music.

if the issue comes down to how different people arrive at their conclusions based on their interpretation of the data then you've got no more of an objective argument than you do when people disagree on their preferences in sound. the fact that you hold so dearly to your premise offers proof that you do indeed consider your opinion on the matter quite important. you have simply agreed with the findings of another and declared yourself innocent of taking sides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is that listener preferences are surprisingly uniform, and correlate highly with objective metrics.

If, for example, you believe that AR3a's produce shimmering highs throughout an imaginary reverberant field in a typical home listening space, then you'll have considerable difficulty reconciling such opinion with both the objective facts as shown in Allison's measured in-room power response, as well as the subjective one that most all listeners find them to be somewhat "dull," precisely as the design intended. Now, that's not a commentary on whether they are "good" or not, rather, merely an exposition of what they are.

Here on CSP, at least in some quarters, owners are desiring that AR3a's be brighter, and attribute their perception that the high-frequency response is attenuated to deterioration due to age. My own measurements and those of others suggest that this is less of a factor than supposed, that misapplication may be the more fundamental issue, and if so, that a redesign is indicated rather than a restoration, which would likely not produce the desired result. This insight is derivative of understanding what the measurements mean in the context of how AR3a's actually perform their "magic," as it were, and there is more yet to be discovered. You'd prefer that I stop, right? Dingus, Howard, and Shacky will handle this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is that listener preferences are surprisingly uniform, and correlate highly with objective metrics.

If, for example, you believe that AR3a's produce shimmering highs throughout an imaginary reverberant field in a typical home listening space, then you'll have considerable difficulty reconciling such opinion with both the objective facts as shown in Allison's measured in-room power response, as well as the subjective one that most all listeners find them to be somewhat "dull," precisely as the design intended. Now, that's not a commentary on whether they are "good" or not, rather, merely an exposition of what they are.

Here on CSP, at least in some quarters, owners are desiring that AR3a's be brighter, and attribute their perception that the high-frequency response is attenuated to deterioration due to age. My own measurements and those of others suggest that this is less of a factor than supposed, that misapplication may be the more fundamental issue, and if so, that a redesign is indicated rather than a restoration, which will likely not produce the desired result. This insight is derivative of understanding what the measurements mean in the context of how AR3a's actually perform their "magic," and there is more yet to be discovered. You'd prefer that I stop, right? Dingus, Howard, and Shacky will handle this?

now we are getting somewhere. for the first time in this thread and in the others that have stirred up this brouhaha, i am getting a sense of where you are coming from. i've obviously missed this critical point up until now and no doubt that fault lies with me, but i find it very difficult to follow you when your style of argument appears to be primarily a deflection of some other point. the one thing that is missing is that i've not seen the part where Howard and Shacky (or anyone else who has taken a contrary stance to your argument) are the ones who attribute the darker character of the AR3a to age as opposed to design.

would i prefer that you stop? not at all. for one thing i lack any kind of technical expertise to be of assistance to anyone in this matter, and for another if you continue to express your argument in this manner, not only can i follow along, but i would do so with great interest. if this has indeed been your assertion from the beginning i dont see what the fuss is all about. those who are content with the sound of their AR3a's will leave them as is, while your explorations can aid those that might want to pursue modifications. sounds like a win-win situation to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this thread, you missed it by one post, apparently:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...amp;#entry79343

"Dark" is less pejorative, but I have been quoting Toole and others on the point.

It's an exercise in futility destined for obscurity in "Mods and Tweaks" so long as the prevailing wisdom is founded in myth.

Howard will say it sucks and recite the mantra in any case; it's simply a matter of when the debate would occur, and I much prefer that it be out of the way BEFORE we invest more effort in this pursuit.

And we've got a place here on CSP where these discussions are acceptable now.

["What's COOKIN' in The Kitchen...?" ;) ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is that listener preferences are surprisingly uniform, and correlate highly with objective metrics.

If, for example, you believe that AR3a's produce shimmering highs throughout an imaginary reverberant field in a typical home listening space, then you'll have considerable difficulty reconciling such opinion with both the objective facts as shown in Allison's measured in-room power response, as well as the subjective one that most all listeners find them to be somewhat "dull," precisely as the design intended. Now, that's not a commentary on whether they are "good" or not, rather, merely an exposition of what they are.

Here on CSP, at least in some quarters, owners are desiring that AR3a's be brighter, and attribute their perception that the high-frequency response is attenuated to deterioration due to age. My own measurements and those of others suggest that this is less of a factor than supposed, that misapplication may be the more fundamental issue, and if so, that a redesign is indicated rather than a restoration, which would likely not produce the desired result. This insight is derivative of understanding what the measurements mean in the context of how AR3a's actually perform their "magic," as it were, and there is more yet to be discovered. You'd prefer that I stop, right? Dingus, Howard, and Shacky will handle this?

Must be spaghetti cooking here today. You can jump into this tangle of worms anywhere, find the end of one strand and just dig in.

"The answer is that listener preferences are surprisingly uniform, and correlate highly with objective metrics."

Given that most people today are musical ignoramuses, that isn't saying anything. What passes for music is reflected in the popular taste for the most banal form of sound whether it is in its content or presentation. I wouldn't put much stock in it. Many people are happy with Two Buck Chuck because they've never tasted Chateau Lafitte Rothchild. If they had, they might never want to go back. It speaks volumes when the term "high fidelity" refers to an industry whose only object is a fidelity to profits and not to accurately reproducing the best performances of the best music available anymore. That seems to have been forgotten a long time ago. Just saying that seems to imply a snobbish unegalitarian mentality that is no longer acceptable in have-to-be-politically-correct America today. Is some music better than other music? Is everyone's taste as valid as anyone elses? Does it matter if the most irritating sounds are not reproduced accurately? So go back to Led Zeppelin and The Greatful Dead if that's your idea of music. If that were the only "music" around, I'd be greatful to be dead myself and I wouldn't give one whit about high fidelity. I'd be perfectly content with a boom box or a clock radio. Even an i-pod would be an extravagance.

"If, for example, you believe that AR3a's produce shimmering highs throughout an imaginary reverberant field in a typical home listening space, then you'll have considerable difficulty reconciling such opinion with both the objective facts as shown in Allison's measured in-room power response, as well as the subjective one that most all listeners find them to be somewhat "dull," precisely as the design intended."

Once upon at time, American teenage boys tore down the engines of cars and rebuilt them. They built shortwave radios not from kits but from parts with a book of theory and learned Morse Code to obtain a general class operator's license. Some of them had enough curiousity and drive that they went on to become engineers and scientists. I built my first audio amplifier when I was ten years old, not from a kit but from old radio parts I found and a schematic in the back of an RCA tube manual. The hardest part was punching holes for the tube sockets in a sheet metal chassis without a chassis punch. I didn't even have the right amplifier tube and had to improvise with a similar one. I also built many other things such as a spectroscope out of lenses and diffraction grating I bought from Edmund Scientific company after an article in a hobbyist magazine. I was not allowed to light the propane torch myself. I played with an erector set starting when I was 5. What has happened to the DIY can-do, experimental try anything garage, backyard, basement projects of red blooded Americans when adding a MicroAcoustics tweeter to an AR3 is about all anyone is willing to try on their own and thinks it's a big deal. Especially now when parts are so plentiful and cheap and so much advice is available instantly on the internet? I think the world of throwaway electronics, lots of money to go shopping with, and the couch potato mentality of surfing the internet has killed it off.

If you don't like the sound of your speakers, do something about it besides going out and buying another one. Figure out what is wrong with it and fix it yourself. Considering that about a million different models have been marketed and come up so short and we are likely to see another million, most people who design and build them are not all that more clever than anyone else. Your chances therefore are as good as anyone's, and you might even have fun and learn something trying. I'm pretty sure I will never buy a new speaker system again. Not even one designed by Zilch. BTW, I think most of today's popular designs can be reverse engineered for about 5% or 10% of what they sell for retail, especially if you are not obsessive about the cabinet finish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

now we are getting somewhere. for the first time in this thread and in the others that have stirred up this brouhaha, i am getting a sense of where you are coming from. i've obviously missed this critical point up until now and no doubt that fault lies with me, but i find it very difficult to follow you when your style of argument appears to be primarily a deflection of some other point. the one thing that is missing is that i've not seen the part where Howard and Shacky (or anyone else who has taken a contrary stance to your argument) are the ones who attribute the darker character of the AR3a to age as opposed to design.

Zilch has quoted (and forgive me the fact that I have no time to pour though his numerous posts to find the exact quote) that the perception of AR 3a tweeters loosing performance due to age is not the case. He states they never had it to begin with.

So don't be fooled into thinking he's only talking about worn out tweeters. That's an output of his symbionic relationship with Onplane who feels that every AR is a project for biamping becasue his tweeters aren't up to snuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zilch has quoted (and forgive me the fact that I have no time to pour though his numerous posts to find the exact quote) that the perception of AR 3a tweeters loosing performance due to age is not the case. He states they never had it to begin with.

So don't be fooled into thinking he's only talking about worn out tweeters. That's an output of his symbionic relationship with Onplane who feels that every AR is a project for biamping becasue his tweeters aren't up to snuff.

by his latest clarification i get that he is talking about the performance and ability of fully functional tweeters. so long as his findings and interpretations of the data from others are not misrepresented, i dont see the conflict. is it not a natural course of events for AR3a owners who prefer a brighter presentation to look for ways to attain it while those who prefer a darker presentation might not? why is this a point of contention, what am i missing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that most people today are musical ignoramuses, that isn't saying anything. What passes for music is reflected in the popular taste for the most banal form of sound whether it is in its content or presentation. I wouldn't put much stock in it. Many people are happy with Two Buck Chuck because they've never tasted Chateau Lafitte Rothchild. If they had, they might never want to go back. It speaks volumes when the term "high fidelity" refers to an industry whose only object is a fidelity to profits and not to accurately reproducing the best performances of the best music available anymore. That seems to have been forgotten a long time ago. Just saying that seems to imply a snobbish unegalitarian mentality that is no longer acceptable in have-to-be-politically-correct America today. Is some music better than other music? Is everyone's taste as valid as anyone elses? Does it matter if the most irritating sounds are not reproduced accurately? So go back to Led Zeppelin and The Greatful Dead if that's your idea of music. If that were the only "music" around, I'd be greatful to be dead myself and I wouldn't give one whit about high fidelity. I'd be perfectly content with a boom box or a clock radio. Even an i-pod would be an extravagance.

"Accuracy" and "High Fidelity" are well-defined terms of art. If the objective is to reproduce music, be it Beethoven or Bon Jovi, accuracy is prerequisite, and an accurate loudspeaker will deliver either with equal acumen. You presume that Toole & Olive's listener preference correlations are derivative in their entirety of a protocol limited to what you consider to be "junk" music. It would be good if you researched what you're talking about, and the information is readily available for all to review.

You and Howard presume that any listeners who do not share your preference for AR3a's (and/or Allison's) "concert hall" (I'll spare everyone the descriptives) presentation of classical music are inherently knuckle-dragging ignorants, and the purpose you profess to embrace is ill-served by this perspective, which pollutes your every post. If there is merit in what you do, then demonstrate it; your cause is clearly not advanced by these relentless attempts to elevate yourselves above all others by attitude alone. Your bags are full of decidedly counterproductive gas.

If the starting point is an accurate loudspeaker, it is easily seen that the same may be "tuned" to taste, once the parameters are understood. If I want a concert hall presentation, I push the "Hall" sound field button, and adjust the toe-in for enhanced ASW. I can't achieve LEV in a small room but via multi-channel, and somebody's going to have to figure out how to get the appropriate cues in the program to begin with.

Your suggestion that the HF and VHF of a purpose-designed speaker such as AR3a might be tweaked into accuracy using 10+ dB of external EQ is certainly valid in that the 40-year-old tweeters, having met with untimely demise as consequence of the practice of driving them with 10+ times the power for which they were designed will, of necessity, have to be replaced with drivers more capable of producing the desired performance. Good plan; did you have something specific in mind? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ahah! caught you offering a personal opinion!

Your term is apt, in my view.

Perhaps you might convince Shacky that it is also so.... ;)

i'm sure he has a solid grasp of the concept, but does your definition of the terms equate bright with accuracy and dark with a lack of accuracy? based on my subjective listening they are mutually exclusive characteristics of sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...