Cello speakers?

[Guest]

I have read that the Cello Amati speaker system is essentially a Levinson version of the LST.

Is that true?

The only Cello speakers I ever heard I thought were terribly bass deficient, but I'm not at all sure they were the Amati models.

If it is true and the Amati is an LST in Cello clothing, I was thinking it might be easier to grab a pair of these than find an unloved pair of LSTs.

Bret

[Guest]

What little I know about these speakers is they are kind of an updated LST using new, very high quality drivers and crossover components. I am sure there were not that many made. It most likely would be harder to find a pair than the original LST's.

http://www.frenchimages.com/marklev/cello/img/proamati_p.jpg

[Guest]

>very high quality drivers and crossover components. <

Thanks for the picture. I now know I've never seen/heard one before.

About "picking up a pair" I was just thinking that "Cello Amati" might make it below the radar whereas "AR LST" might not. But then I underestimated, badly, how many people there were who loved their AR speakers. I knew there were some / many, but not the masses there seems to be.

I thought I remembered Cello speakers looking more like Dalquists. Obviously I remembered wrong.

Bret

[ToastedAlmond]

There's not that many people Bret, we're all just at one place at one time.

I remember that speaker billed as a kind of Super LST also. I would expect a correspondingly high attitude tax on a pair of those things. The figure that's running around my head (in circles!) is $35,000/pr. I could be mistaken. It could've been $12 or 18k. Why did I start this? That was MSRP. Used? Who knows?

George

[Guest]

Yea, they were REAL expensive. I believe they used Dynaudio drivers in the Cello version, though my memory may be failing. I wonder what a you could do to upgrade the LST's crossover network? With the LST's could you ever get them to be more of a speaker than they already are? Then again didn't Lyne sell upgrades for them?

[Steve F]

The following post is from a previous topic regarding the Cello speakers, by Tom and myself.

"> From 1986 until 1998, Levinson also made a custom AR-LST

>known as the Amati or the Amati Pro...They, too,

>were expensive at $16,500 pair... some customers

>preferred the "stacked" Amatis.

>

>--Tom Tyson

I did hear stacked Amati's at a Sound Advice store in Florida several years ago, and they were quite nice. The midranges are AR-11 vintage, not AR-9 style."

The photo here must be of a later Cello speaker; the ones I'm familiar with are AR-built cabinets and drivers, with Levinson-modified crossovers.

Steve F.

[Guest]

What was the mod done on the X-over? Anything truly worth charging that amount of money for a pair of LST's?

[Guest SteveG]

Bret and all,

What difference the additional money makes in the Cello speakers is a good question. I would make a couple observations about the LST's as I have owned and enjoyed a pair since 1978. First, they are truly room filling speakers in a way that most other speakers cannot approach. Even the 9's. Tom and others have explained energy versus power response (I can never remember which is which). But the LST's, with their ultra wide dispersion, create a tremendous amount of reflected sound that to my ears creates a very realistic "live concert" sense. Think about a concert hall--instruments eminate sound in all directions and the stage is acoustically reflective. So the sound is not a point source, but the product of the original signal and many reflections. The LST's seem to recreate this quite effectively, and that is why I have liked them so much for all these years without really understanding why technically until recently. Be aware however, that while you gain "concert hall" ambience with the LST's you arguably lose precise "imaging", at which the 9's are superior. It seeme this is a matter of taste. I have listened to 9's a few times over the years, and the sound field of the LST's is far more pleasing to me. I'd suggest that you try to get a good listen to the LST's before buying to see whether this is the sound for you. For me it was love at first sound, but I believe that most on this site probably prefer the 9's sound. The 9's do have an edge in the lowest bass, so that may be an additional consideration. For the music I listen to I have never found the LST's lacking.

As for upgrading the LST's, I would actually pose a second, and different issue. My biggest problem is in finding recordings that really sound good. One of the few recording companies that makes consistently wonderful recordings is ECM, a jazz label. Even their pre digital recordings were great. By contrast, I recently bought a new "digitally remastered" version of Chicago 2 by "Rhino" (from 1970) for old time sake. What a disappointment. The bass seemed overemphasized and muddy (compared to my old original LP), and the treble was hardly there, you could barely hear cymbals at all. I find I am a bit less critical on recordings when listening to the AR 11's, but when listening to the LST's at higher volume, the poorly recorded CD's are barely tolerable. Just wondering if others have had this same issue!! So my point here is that I have found with the LST's the limiting factor is recording quality, not speaker capability. I fear that if all the additional money for the Cello's is really effective, then it might only increase the frustration over poorly recorded material.

SteveG

[ar_pro]

Steve -

I'm in agreement with your description of the LST's "concert hall" characteristics...to me, it always seemed as if the LST was delivering what the Bose 901 had promised - an expansive, full soundfield, but with proper frequency presentation and balance. The LST systems that I've encountered have not imaged quite so well as the AR-9, but I've often wondered if it was because of their location - in every instance, the speakers were up against a back wall, while my 9's (and most of those that I've come across) are pulled out into the room. Can the LST's be stand-mounted, and brought out from the wall, without sacrificing their spacious sound? Would this compromise the bass & lower midrange balance?

Ditto on ECM...almost always a superb recording!

[Guest]

All this talk of the LST is driving me nuts! I own a pair but have never listened to them due to the little house we own. There is not a room in the house that would be worth setting them up. That and my 2 year old would end up destroying the things. We are moving into a much larger house in July and my 1st priority will no doubt be my stereo room, regardless of what the other half says. There is a 12'x 15' room just waitng for my stereo gear!

[Guest SteveG]

AR-pro and bhans,

Great questions. I have generally NOT had the LST's against a wall. In first house after I bought them I made stands about 18" high and had them free standing about 18" from back wall, each a few feet from a side wall. Living room was 25X15, so had plenty of space. Main limitation was that I only had an AR amplifier to drive them then, but they never lacked base or spaciousness. In 1983 they moved to a smaller room in new house, about 21X14 and were much closer to the back wall. They sounded good, but I only realized how limited they had been a couple years ago when I took them to a fairly large basement (carpeted etc) installed freestanding away from wall (same old stands) but now powered by an Adcom 555. This made all the difference. It is like a straight jacket was taken off. They easily fill a very large space. So my feeling is NOT to stick the LST's to a wall. In fact Ken or Tom a while back indicated that reflected sound from too close will provide an undesirable effect, and that our brains prefer to hear reflected sounds with more delay. This would seem to be consistent with having the LST's away from the wall, especially given the mids send a lot of sound backwards. Also, the single 12" woofer in each box seems quite up to the task on bass. For some real nice bass work I'd suggest both "A Closer View" by Towner and Peacock on ECM, and "Duet/Partners" by Bley and Peacock on OWL. The latter is I think out of print. But both have peacock at his best on acoustic bass, and the sound is beautifuly recorded, to say nothing about the artistry of the compositions.

And here is the interesting part. I have no problem at all seeing the placement of different instruments or sections (eyes closed) across the soundfield, very realistically (or so it seems to me). Depending on the recording, the sound can be VERY spacious. I don't seem to be able to achieve the same effect with the 11's at any volume. It must be the dispersion and reflectivity.

I couldn't agree more on the comment about Bose 901's. My brother-in-law loves these and he is a jazz pianist. The idea of no crossover is intriguing. But it seems a lot to ask getting a full spectrum of sound from 4" drivers, and it doesn't seem to my ears that the 901's do it.

SteveG

[Guest]

?The midranges are AR-11 vintage, not AR-9 style."<

Thank you for the "clip" from the previous posting. I'll get accustomed to doing searches and hopefully will stop revisiting subjects that many have already covered.

The entire topic of correct replacement drivers and the different driver's properties is intriguing me lately. ;-)

I have to say that I've heard the LST properly (I thought) placed and improperly placed and heard two entirely different speaker systems even though they were the very same LSTs.

I identify with the comments that have the imaging being imprecise on LSTs, but then I could argue most records are not made for correct imaging of an orchestra anyway and who really cares if Guns and Roses' imagining resembles that of a live concert? In fact, it may be that vintage AR speakers somehow or other compensate (to my ear) preposterous miking and mastering in classical recordings.

I still have problems with microphones stuck inside a grand piano. I've never attended a concert where I was allowed to sit with my head just over the sounding-board listening to the percussion of the hammers against the strings but I have several recordings evidently made like that. There seems to be a standard to "mic close" instruments you rarely hear from that vantage point.

My point, of course, is that in the right room I find off-axis projection to be wonderful. I don't have a good room, so I'm probably better-off without LSTs.

I'm somewhat ashamed to admit that I have never developed a proper appreciation for jazz, and so I can't discuss jazz recordings intellegently. Or spell intelligently, intelligently either, it would appear.

Bret

[ar_pro]

Steve -

The placement and height of your speaker stands sounds ideal for the LST...do you also notice an improvement in vertical dispersion?

Years ago, I remember someone writing about setting up a system with two pairs of LST's, placed back-to-back atop a stand which was maybe five feet from the front wall. I guess the idea was to provide a greater mix of direct and reflected sounds (from a "360 degree" source), using a speaker that was specifically designed for wide dispersion. I'd love to hear a double LST set-up sometime!

[Guest SteveG]

AR Pro

Not really sure how to gauge vertical dispersion. Current placement hac carpeted floor and acoustic tile ceiling, so the wood paneled walls are probably most reflective. If you would, pls explain more what you mean by vertical dispersion.

The back to bakc LST's certainly sounds interesting. Truly the ultimate Bose 901. In the proper environment this sounds like it would be very interesting. By the way I really agree with a comment you made earlier about "imaging", to the extent that this meant sensing distinct positioning of the separate sound sources. In most live environments, we are not really close enough to discern this. While I can distinctly place different sections from orchestral works, violins left, double bass right etc, I am not sure this is a real major plus. It seems that as with many effects, if it is highly noticable, it is probably overemphasized. Remember early stereo recordings with extreme separartio??? Kind of hard to listen to. Makes you want to move your speakers next top each other.

SteveG

[ar_pro]

I'm referring to the perceived height of the stereo image, Steve. The LSTs are superb at making a wide and deep presentation, and it does sound as if stand-mounting them away from the front wall improves their ability to add depth to the image. The most substantial difference that I could distinguish when listening to the AR-9 for the first time (compared to AR's previous "bookshelf" designs), was the dramatic change in the HEIGHT of the stereo image - everything sounded TALLER! I have to believe that the 9's floor-standing design which placed the mids & tweeter at optimum height had much to do with this. At the time, stand-mounted smaller speakers were a rarity - speakers were usually placed on shelves or in cabinets that were seldom at optimum listening height, and usually had obstructions above or below the face of the loudspeaker, further affecting their vertical dispersion. I'm wondering if you've noticed a more realistic sense of height with your LSTs on stands?

[Guest SteveG]

Not real sure on this "vertical dispersion". I originally mounted the LSTs on the stands I built to put the mids and tweets at about ear level, and have done so for the last couple years also in the basement. Just listened to parts of a few CDs I checked out of library a couple days ago in reaction to your description of vertical dispersion. First was Alanis Morissette (keeping an open mind to all performers) from MTV Unpluged. Disappointing, flat, badly recorded. Surprising as other MTV unplugged performances (Eric Clapton on CD and Sting on HiFiVHS) are superb recordings. Next a 1957 recording of Stan Getz and JJ Johnson. Much better, but not very spacious sounding, other than the cymbals that seemed to be coming from well ablve the height of the speakers. Finally went to one of my cds, Keith Jarret Vienna Concert (solo piano) and the whole room opened up. The sound felt as though it was eminating from floor to ceiling. Beautiful. I am not quite sure whether this difference in spaciousness of the sound on a really nicely recorded CD is due to the actual source material, or to the fact that we tend to turn the volme a lot higher on material that is well recorded with little distortion. I assume a bit of both. it seems that some recordings really tend to open up in fromt of you while others seem flat and muddy. Presume this is a matter of difference in skill of the recording engineers. In any case, with a well recorded CD, and LSTs at ear level away from back and side walls, the sense of the sound seems well dispersed in all dimensions. At high volume it seems surrounding. This was not really the case when I had these speakers in a smaller room for several years on top of cabinets, at about ear level, but with a TV between them (about 18" between TV and each speaker). Sound was good but not the same. I assume that the TV and cabinets the speakers were on were affecting the sound reflectivity to some extent. The AR11's sound almost as good in this location, but cannot come close to competing with the spacious sound if the LSTs in the basement---I have tried. So, I'd Suggets trying the LSTs in more of a freestanding arrangement, you might like it.

I seem to recall that some have said AR did demonstrations of LSTs (and possibly other speakers) in concert halls. I always imagined the speakers set up on the stage as a performer would be, freestanding at stage center. Seems unlikely that AR would have stuck them back against the back wall. Do you or others have any knowledge on this!!

SteveG

SteveG

[ar_pro]

The famous ECM recording of Keith Jarrett's "Koln Concert" is a particular favorite, both musically and in terms of its sonic quality...I've used it to audition many pieces of equipment over the years, and it was the first CD to be played over my restored AR-9s!

The recording's horizontal spread and illusion of depth is evident on just about any decent stereo system (I get the feeling that this was not a close-miked production), but the sense of HEIGHT really clicks in with certain loudspeakers.

[Guest SteveG]

AR Pro

I could not agree more with you on the Koln Concert. And remarkably this was a 1975 recording, which is the earliest of the 9 Jarret CD's I have. But as good as this is, I rate it a 9 for overall greatness of sound. Few CD's get a ten in my book, but 2 are the ones I mentioned in post 10 above. If you can get either, I think you wil love them, particularly with your 9's.

SteveG

[Guest Brian_D]

There have been many studies done on how to correctly mic (and EQ) various instruments in various situations.

The idea behind micing a piano so closely originaly came from the old days of radio broadcast where microphones weren't sensitive to frequencies much lower than 100hz, and therefore the thumping and pounding noises of pedals, hammers, etc. weren't even captured.

When the studies were perfomed, this method of micing was retained in cases where an open hall or solo piano effect was desired. If you've been to a small venue with a typical reverbarant stage, and a solo piano in the middle, you know that you can hear the thumps and bumps if you listen closely. You can't, however, record those same sounds from the typical stereo mic setup that is used for whole stage recording. Since these sounds reverberate from the stage, not the instrument itself, their dispersion is restricted to the lowest, most reflective surfaces, namely the floor. It's just not feasable to record the entire spectral experience of a piano by micing with whole stage methods (border mics, suspended condensers, etc.) so the norm is to record mic-in-pocket. (the term used by micing engineers for micing an instrument within the physical limits of the instrument)

If a recording is made of a piano with accompaniment, and it is mic'd in-pocket, this is incorrect. Accompanied *anything* should be whole-stage mic'd, unless it's a duo/trio/quartet and each instrument can be mic'd indipendently and post-processed for whole-stage effect. (A much debated issue.)

Hope this helps your understanding! I personally don't like in-pocket micing and would much rather hear whole stage recordings... You can get a much better room feel. But in the end, it's all personal preference, like LST's vs. 9's. I feel the superior imaging of the 9 lends itself well to whole stage recordings, and does not do well with in-pocket recordings unless the post-processing is really scrutinized and perfected. On the other hand, I imagine that speakers like the LST/Cello/901's/whatever would reproduce in-pocket recordings with appropriate room effects very well, while whole-stage recordings would tend to be overly reverbarant and less clear (fuzzy?) I say "imagine" because I've never listened to any of these speakers. (My mind shudders to think of an already reverbarant recording with existing room effect being broadcast multi-axis and having even more room effect applied as a result. Ick)

[soundminded]

What about proximity effect? Does this have to be compensated for in pocket miking by equalizing the bass boost out in the mixdown?

[ninohernes]

Most of my recording work is piano and violin. When I record a violin with a piano accompaniment, I have 2 small diaphragm condensers inside the piano, one EQ'd low and one high (gives a nice stereo effect) and a large diaphragm condenser in front of the violin. Now this can change. If I am recording a string sextet (Brahams) I will use 2 condensers, one on the left and one on the right, but not out front, along the sides of the semicircle, (phasing usually is not a problem) then I will use a small large diaphragm condenser in the center. If I am recording a Jazz group, with strings, a piano, and a bass, I will mic the bass, then I will mic the strings, left and right and I will use a large diaphragm for the vocals. These are all techniques that I use for live recording, however they do work well in the studio too. If you would like to hear a CD of my work, let me know! I have a recorded Spike Wilner and Dennis Jeter playing with the Adirondack Ensemble. For more info on Spike Wilner, click here http://www.xcent.com/aaj/directory/display...r&ArtistID=1215

For more info on Dennis click here http://www.jazzworld.com/dennisjeter/

I am going to get a hold of both of them to see if they are interested in using my recordings for any of their albums. Spike and Dennis were instructors at a camp that I went to last summer, they gave a concert as part of their instruction. I was the recording engineer. I have recorded a lot with the Adirondack Ensemble, but Spike and Dennis are the most famous that I have had the privilege to record. I would like to be a pro recording engineer, I am looking at attending college at Columbia College in Chicago. They have an audio recording degree. My goal is to make the highest fidelity recording possible with the equipment that I have, which is very good.

[Guest Bret]

>(My mind shudders to think of an already reverbarant recording with existing room effect being broadcast multi-axis and having even more room effect applied as a result. Ick)<

That's my sentiment exactly - "Ick!"

I haven't played music since the college band and I was (surprise surprise) a percussionist (read: drummer, duh, beat head with sticks).

Well, I did get to play stuff with more than one note, but still.

Anyway, the central point is that the trumpets sounded way different from behind and to the side. So if you mic up front and play it backwards you really arent' re-creating the reflected sound of the instruments. In fact, I was always amazed to hear recordings of the band because, for one thing, you could barely hear some instruments (tubular bells, typmani, etc) on recordings from the front, yet I assure you that being back where we were you could definitely hear them - they might have even been slightly painful.

I thought I was being an "animal" on one tympani passage and was really shocked to find that I could barely be heard. So miking it close-up is an error. Blowing trumpets backward is an error, and pretending that a mix meant to allow the up front winds to be heard proportionally which is then played at the rear wall to "produce ambience" is completely nonsensical on its face.

What "direct/reflecting" speakers need is about a six-channel amplifier playing six positionally exclusive recordings on a single set of LSTs or 901s wired that way. Well, that's what makes sense to me. But I'm not a recording engineer or a pro at any level. But it does seem reasonable to think that the crossovers in a direct/reflecting design would need to compensate for the difference between the way a guitar sounds from the front of the box and from the side. I fully realize that that still doesn't compensate for the environment the instrument is playing-in and that the reflection itself is responsible for some shifting in 3-D.

So. . . I suppose I'll just enjoy my stereo image until Ken or someone developes a speaker that somehow "knows" what *should* be reproduced off-axis and does it. Or at least fools me into believing it does it.

BRet

[Guest Brian_D]

Well, it depends largely on the mic.

With large diaphragm condensors, the low frequency "noises" are fairly pronounced. I've seen people EQ in this situation but more often they'll find a frequency peak and put a notch filter on that track. In general, people who record live instruments detest EQ's on individual instruments, and only use them to simulate room effects when necessary.

Some people who mic pianos in-pocket will use one large diaphragm over the strings (lid open of course) and then EQ the crap out of it because of the proximity effect at it relates to the strings themselves.

The best recordings I've heard (and the way Roland samples pianos for digitization) is to place two condensors about 4 feet apart on booms aimed at an open lid. (full open, about 60 degrees) Picture a grand, curvy side facing you. The booms are placed such that the mic is aligned with the edge of the frame, so one is further back than the other. The mics are about 4 feet from the top of the frame, and pointed at the hinge of the lid. See the attached picture.

Anyway, it's largely up to the engineer how he/she compensates for proximity or near-field effects. Like I said, I usually see notch filters where neccesary.

http://168.143.114.212/dc/user_files/32.gif

[soundminded]

One of the most frustrating kinds of recording mistakes to listen to is where a solo instrument is way out of proportion to the rest of a musical ensemble. This is especially annoying where a piano concerto or a violin concerto has the soloist as loud as the entire orchestra. Sometimes a solo singer is as loud as an entire choir. Other times usually much more rarely, the soloist is completely lost by being drowned out. Did you know that violinists usually tune to 444 hz instead of 440 hz concert A for concertos to help them "cut through" the orchestra? They also choose louder instruments such as Guarnairis over Strads for the same reason. What sounds a little harsh in a studio is mellowed out by the acoustics of a large hall and gives better results. They figure that the guy sitting in the last row of the balcony has paid his money too and has a right to hear.

The balance engineer who makes this kind of mistiake ought to be shot.

[ninohernes]

>The balance engineer who makes this kind of mistiake ought to

>be shot.

I agree!