Cello speakers?

[Guest Bret]

>Anyway, it's largely up to the engineer how he/she compensates for proximity or near-field effects.<

Okay, here's a non-recording engineer who listens to music and hasn't recorded any; me.

So this may be so obvious a question as to show just how provincial I really am, but. . .

If we have to "correct" for proximity, why don't we just move the mic's so they aren't in proximity?

Bret

[Guest Brian_D]

The idea of recording a musician solo is to capture their ability to play their instrument. When solo recordings are made, it's more often for the fellow soloist than for the general public.

Think about it thsi way. I personally love the trumpet and cornet. When I look for good recordings, I don't really care what famous music hall or famous conductor was involved, I just want to hear the musician do their thing on their instrument.

Piano is a slightly special case, people like to hear pianos in a big room for some reason, but the key is this: Most of the people who buy recordings of soloists are musicians themselves. Musicians like to hear the instrument from the perspective of the artist. So a panist buys a solo recording and hears it the same way the artist did, not as if they were sitting in the audience.

It's all about the target audience.

[Guest Bret]

>It's all about the target audience.<

Makes sense.

Bret

[soundminded]

I'm not so sure I agree. What percentage of the people who bought Heifetz recordings were violinists? Of course by today's standards, most of his recordings up through about the early to mid fifties were pretty awful technically. I live with a violinist. We have the complete collection on both compact disc and on vinyl. To her, HE is GOD!!!! And what percentage of people who buy opera records are singers themselves?

Why do people want to hear pianos played in large rooms? Because it is a big powerful instrument and when you hear all of the reverberation of the room not to mention the bass reinforcement of the lowest octaves, it sounds even more powerful and magnificent. A Steinway M parlor grand like mine can be pretty loud in a normal living room. A concert grand like a B size can be awesome especially when it plays against a full orchestra in a major concerto. Of course, in smaller solo works or in small ensembles like a piano trio say, a more intimate setting is appropriate. Still, these pieces were made to be heard in large reverberant rooms of castles in the 17th, 18th, and even 19th centuries, often for aristocrats and their guests who were the composers' patrons.

[Guest SteveG]

>>(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!"

Brian and Bret,

Just listened to Koln Concert again on the LST's, and nothing short of wonderful, as it was when I first heard it on the same speakers some 25 years ago. just like being in a medium-large, acousticaslly live hall. Brian, hope you will have a chance to actually listen to some of these speakers at some point. You will probably find some of the distinctions discussed in these pages tp be less dramatic than sometimes suggested. What I find to be palpable in the LST's and the 9's however, id the amazing bass extension of the 9's, and the amazing room-filling characteristics of the LST's. On bass heavy music the 9's are amazing. I personally am not so into bass (electrically derived), as I like jazz and classical primarily. And I don't listen to organ music that often. But the sound of the LST's is really different, and nothing muck like the 901's in my opinion. They do admirably well on acoustic string bass, far better than the 3a or 11, surprisingly. Perhaps this is due to the fancy circuitry. I also find them not lacking in imaging. The images of instrument placement is as clear as it is in live listening, to my ears. But the reverberance and ambience of the music from the LST's is what sets them apart. To some of us, this seems to come closer than other speakers in creating the sound and feel of a live concert. Others may not like this. Probably depends on the music you listen to, but also on where and how you have listened to music in the past. I imagine that we are all looking for sound that reproduces and reinforces what we have heard and liked in the past. Ths live Jazz in clubs and classical concerts that I grew up with set me up to be an LST person, I guess. Other backgrounds clearly lead to different preferences.

SteveG

[Guest Bret]

>Just listened to Koln Concert again on the LST's, and nothing short of wonderful<

Steve, I have extolled the virtues of the LST and MST speakers and, like you, find that (in the right room) they give me almost exactly the same stage that I hear from mid-way or further back in our very reasonable local auditorium.

I don't care for them when I'm listening to Pink Floyd, however. That over-produced stuff really sounds awful on 901s, too. The "etherial imaging" (I originally typed "etherial imagining" which might be more true) gets all gunked-up (technical term) in the reflections.

I agree with you that the 9's strongest strong-suit is the clean and clear bass extention, but they also do a very good job at "imaginings."

Just another $0.02.

Bret

[Guest SteveG]

Bret,

I confess to not owning any Pink Floyd. Have much Hendrix, Joplin (Janis, not Scott), BloodSweat&Tears, and Chicago however. Also DMB from the current crop. Good Jazz-Rock fusion.

I'd certainly agree that there are few speakers I've heard thatI would compate to either 9's or LSTs for overall sound. I recall HI Fidelity review of 9 whwn it came out. They concluded that by far closest sound to the 9 was the LST, which had half an octave ledd bass. So I'd be happy with either!! (2 cents!)

SteveG

[tysontom]

>Bret,

>I confess to not owning any Pink Floyd. Have much Hendrix,

>Joplin (Janis, not Scott), BloodSweat&Tears, and Chicago

>however. Also DMB from the current crop. Good Jazz-Rock

>fusion.

>

>I'd certainly agree that there are few speakers I've heard

>thatI would compate to either 9's or LSTs for overall sound.

>I recall HI Fidelity review of 9 whwn it came out. They

>concluded that by far closest sound to the 9 was the LST,

>which had half an octave ledd bass. So I'd be happy with

>either!! (2 cents!)

>

>SteveG

There is one setup -- not mentioned in these pages -- that is very hard to match: stacked AR-LSTs (tweeters close to one another), using the Allison Electronic Subwoofer (ESW) and both speakers in parallel being driven by one very large amplifier (or pair of amplifiers) capable of high power into low (read <2-ohm or less) impedances. This setup gives high-power, low-distortion, flat bass output down to 20 Hz., and a room-filling spaciousness and realism that is hard to believe. It takes a large room to appreciate it properly. This still will not match the "imaging" of the AR-9, but actually surpasses it in most other categories.

Incidentally, for those in these pages unaware of the ESW, it is the electronic-subwoofer equilizer system designed by Roy Allison for the Allison speakers, but it dovetails precisely with all the AR acoustic-suspension resonance points, since Allisons and ARs are so close together in that respect. It precisely compensates for the natural, 12dB/octave rolloff of the LST/3a/10Pi/11, etc., below resonance (approximately 38-43Hz) allowing those speakers to produce relatively flat output, exclusive of room effects, to 20Hz and below. Since the AR 12-inch (***please note that I did not say "11-inch") woofer has prodigious excursion capability, the ESW is a natural extension to this system. Since the AR-9 has a resonance of 28Hz., the equilized systems are actually flatter in the lowest bass. But it takes stacked 3a's or LSTs or whatever to equal the low distortion of four woofers used in the AR-9 system.

--Tom Tyson

[Steve F]

>Incidentally, for those in these pages unaware of the ESW, it

>is the electronic-subwoofer equilizer system designed by Roy

>Allison for the Allison speakers, but it dovetails precisely

>with all the AR acoustic-suspension resonance points, since

>Allisons and ARs are so close together in that respect. Since

>the AR 12-inch (***please note that I did not say "11-inch")...

>--Tom Tyson

Thanks for the correct 12-inch identification Tom!

Mark,

I'm sure I have the original lit on the ESW lurking somewhere in my files downstairs if you need it.

Although the ESW had a setting to extend the low end response of 8-inch sealed systems like the Allison:Four and AR-6, the user had to exercise care and common sense not to overdrive those smaller systems at high levels.

Steve F.

[Guest Brian_D]

As your post recognizes, I have long believed that the only reason speaker manufacurers even bother to continue building speakers (other than the "wow factor" of quad 15" drivers like the legacy's or the "ooooh factor" of the Boze theory on good sound) is that listening comes down to personal preference in every case.

Let's look at the advancements of speaker technology in the past ten years. Anyone recall anything significant? Not me. We are far past the time of leaps and bounds seen in the 60's and 70's. In a 12 year timespan we got: the acoustic susspension driver, the dome midrange, liquid-cooled drivers, electrostatic elements, compression elements (horns), metal dome tweeters, high-tech polycarbonites, new magnetic materials... You get the idea. Breakthroughs are few and far between in this market now.

Take a look at the newer "cutting edge" speakers on the market, most of them try to do 1 of three things:

1. Blend in with their surroundings. In-wall speakers, teenie tiny cube speakers, and the new panel radiating glass panel speakers (neat)

2. Take advantage of room placement. I see lots of new speakers that are simply existing designs pointed at the wall or ceiling instead of the listener. Woofers pointed at the floor and crossed over at 200 hz. (try listening to Janis on those things!) or 3. (Most common) Look unique in some way. Take a look at new Infinity/Harman Kardon/Polk/JBL's etc. speakers. They all use common drivers, common cabinets, and have common ratings. The difference: decor. "Honey, do the Citations or the Intermezzo's match the drapes more closely?" It's sound for the masses.

So for the pessimist: There's nothing new out there, it's all variation on a theme and regardless of cost, I'll like one speaker over another because of HOW IT SOUNDS TO ME.

For the optimist: Technology has perfected our industry, leveling the playing field so that the true competition is execution, not selection of components that seperates the pack. In the end I'll like a speaker over another because of HOW IT SOUNDS TO ME, regardless of cost.

At any rate, I get the feeling that speaker selection and recording selection is the same debate. How does it sound to me? For me? I want to hear "Cantalope Island" and "So What" at the fringes of the capabilities of my system. I want to hear the floor creak under the feet of Fleetwood Mac and the Eagles during recording sessions. I want to hear Carter Beaufort (of Dave Matthews Band) do what he does best at the limits of my hearing and if I don't come out ears ringing, seing spots and salivating for more, it didn't count.

[Guest SteveG]

Hey Tom,

I have LST's and 3a's. What would be effect of stacking these in parallel be? Could even run them on separate power amps if I could equalize the gain. Or would they interfere with each other in some way. Actually I was considering precisely the stacked LST's and checked out the Audiogon add that Bret posted about a week ago. But someone beat me to them. Who is the lucky new owner to pick these up for $500??

SteveG

[tysontom]

>Hey Tom,

>I have LST's and 3a's. What would be effect of stacking these

>in parallel be? Could even run them on separate power amps if

>I could equalize the gain. Or would they interfere with each

>other in some way. Actually I was considering precisely the

>stacked LST's and checked out the Audiogon add that Bret

>posted about a week ago. But someone beat me to them. Who is

>the lucky new owner to pick these up for $500??

>

>SteveG

Steve,

I have never tried the combination of stacked LST's and AR-3a's, so I don't know from first-hand experience. Since the radiation pattern of those speakers is quite different, it might not sound as good as it might seem. I would hold out for the second pair of LST's, and then find the Allison Acoustics ESW to use with them.

Stacking LST's properly would be to put the bottom speaker right-side up, and the top speaker upside down. Both speakers should be a couple feet, at least, off the floor, and flush with the back wall or at least fairly close to it. If the woofers are adjacent to each other in a stacked array, you will get a "mutual-radiation impedance" problem, which increases the relative level of the bass, but with no attendant bass extension, and results in over-emphasis in the mid-bass range. Using the ESW you keep the bass uniform but greatly extended down to 20Hz. It is subtle, but it's quite noticeable with good program material.

--Tom Tyson

[roundhome]

Mr Tyson

what type of problem would you have if you had a 28 inch tall cabinet with 4 cube feet volume and two AR12s in the front on top of each other and the AR9s woofer electronics would the allison unit help this and are they easy to find.

Jim:P

[Guest Bret]

>There is one setup -- not mentioned in these pages -- that is very hard to match: stacked AR-LSTs (tweeters close to one another), using the Allison Electronic Subwoofer (ESW) and both speakers in parallel being driven by one very large amplifier (or pair of amplifiers) capable of high power into low (read <2-ohm or less) impedances.<

Why'd you go and do that to me? What are the odds that I'll ever reproduce this system? Do you stack them on the floor (I hope?)

I may have to look for some real "junkers" to be able to afford to try this. I really think I might have a great room for this setup.

I'm having fun dreaming, even though I'll probably never hear that setup.

Bret