AR bashing ??

[charger3834]

I realize that this topic may be a bit controversial, However, I want to address it anyway. I also want to state that I am not an industry expert; I am just one man with a concern.

Why aren’t AR speakers given the respect they deserve in the high-end audio press? I have never seen a historical article with photos, specs etc. In fact some of the references suggest that they are outdated, somewhat flawed designs. I remember reading Stereophile’s review of the top 100 historical products. The AR-3a just barely made the list and some derogatory, subjective comments were made. To the best of my recollection, I don’t think these were even valid arguments !! I wish I still had the article. In all fairness, the AR XA turntable did score high on the list, but not without criticism of its tonearm. These magazines will then proceed to give some new “delightful” little speaker a stellar review. Last time I attended live music it had a bottom end below 50HZ, and the frequencies were not beamed ahead to a 3-foot sweet spot!

Why does everyone get down on their knees in the presence of a McIntosh 275 or a Marantz Model 9. Are these outdated too ?

Like it or not AR made profound contributions to the industry, and their sound is still incredibly lifelike. Their designs have in my mind stood the test of time.

[Guest SteveG]

Brad,

One view. People who pay big bucks for a Mercedes (not so much anymore) tend to dismiss shortcomings and convince they have something special, otherwise they would have to admit they spent a lot more than for a Ford and got only exclusivity. I remember many years ago in a fancy stereo store I asked the salesman why some XYZ piece of equiptment cost 5 times as much as another item that sounded identical. He said "Well it is lime my Mercedes. It has 130,000 miles on it and it has only had one valve job and one transmission rebuild." He was taken aback when I responded "Gee, my 1965 Chevy Impala has 160,000 miles and has had zero valve jobs and zero transmission rebuilds."

I suspect that there is a lot of dismissing AR products as low-end low-priced products. This in comparison with high-end, high-priced, price-is-no object products. Basically AR products brought incredible performance to everyone at prices they could afford. If you spent 5 or 10 times as much don't you think you would want to believe you spent your money wisely? I listened to a mega bucks Mark Levinson system at a local hi-end store recently, and frankly wouldn't even think of trading my LST/Adcom555 setup for it, unless I could turn around and sell the levinson, bur back my system and keep the change.

Just a suspicion, but it always seemed to me that the audiophile type magazines fell into this a bit also. After all, how interesting would their jobs be if they were always reporting on the high-priced exotic items as no better but much more expensive than every-man's AR or KLH.

On the other hand, perhaps it is we who couldn't afford the 10X price tags that have deluded ourselves into thinking that our AR's are just as good. Pretty subjective stuff. But I'll keep my AR's. Suspect others on this site feel the same.

SteveG

[Rlowe]

Perhaps a comment by an Australian audio magazine around 1983 still has some relevance. It reviewed the AR38s' and it concluded by stating

"For those readers new to Hi-Fi, AR, we are reliably informed, sells most speakers by user recommendations. This we think speaks for itself."

[ToastedAlmond]

The Australian may be correct, but it could be because NOBODY says "Buy speakers like mine. They sound lousy!"

I have found speakers to be quite personal, and touchy topics with some. Badmouth SOME people's speakers, and it's like making a derogatory comment about their mom.

If they don't get raved about by the audio above or below ground press, who cares? That's fewer people out there chasing them down, and I'm all for that!

George

[soundminded]

There are many people who write for these magazines who simply do not know the facts. AR not only pioneered the acoustic suspension principle which made modern high quality stereophonic sound in normal sized homes possible but introduced many other innovations which are taken for granted today such as the dome tweeter and magnetic fluid in loudspeaker drivers. Their first amplifier made it possible to buy a reasonably priced piece of equipment that had the power and quality to merit driving practically any speaker on the market. Their turntable, a low cost knockoff of the excellent Thorens design made it possible for someone to assemble an entire sound system for under $1000 that could compete with anything at any price. They also set the highest manufacturing quality standards which most other manufacturers today couldn't possibly begin to match. They took a highly scientific approach to designing and measuring their equipment rather than the tossed salad get-it-on-the-market-fast approach so many of their competitors took.

AR backed up its claims to accuracy by holding live versus recorded demos, two of which I had the pleasure of attending at NY audio shows in the early sixties. One featured a guitarist and the other a nickelodeon. Both were very impressive.

Apparantly high accuracy reproduction of serious music in not the goal or interest of many audiophiles today. Never having heard live music, to many of them the ideal sound system produces a thin shrill charicature of real music.

Had AR used materials such as cloth surrounds for their woofers instead of foam and switches instead of potentiomenters the way KLH did that would have held up better over time, their "vintage" models would be in even greater demand on the used market IMO.

[charger3834]

Very soundminded discussion !

>Apparantly high accuracy reproduction of serious music in not

>the goal or interest of many audiophiles today. Never having

>heard live music, to many of them the ideal sound system

>produces a thin shrill charicature of real music.

Interesting point. I was under the impression that live music was the reference standard to judge all HiFi equipment. I am also concerned that there may be an overall lack of science and objectivity in the industry. If what your saying is in fact the case, it would seem as if the high end has it's share of those who embrace the "golden ear" philosophy. AR defined the "golden ear" philosophy as a basic belief that only " those of exceptional sensitivity and taste are able to judge the fidelity of a recording or music system."

Perhaps the live vs recorded demos need to be brought back. Perhaps the $500.00 interconects need to be scientifically evaluated.

I very strongly reject the idea that we are too sentimental, or that we simply cant afford these Mercedes-like systems. We forum members represent a variety of ages and backgrounds.

[charger3834]

I want to thank the Marantz company for mentioning AR in the history section of their webpage. They refered to the "legendary Thorens/Marantz/AR combination." I think that shows alot of class for a huge multinational company. I was so pleased that I went out and bought their 95 watt PM 7000 high current integrated amp.

[soundminded]

I'm no longer sure what the reference is anymore. I have posted my point of view on other boards. It always seemed to me that the sole legitimate goal of all of this technology was to duplicate the auditory experience of hearing the best that live music had to offer. People who have seriously studied music for much of their lives understand the profound nature of the revolution that began with Bach in the 17th century and continues until this day. Those who have spent a lifetime perfecting the art of playing a musical instrument and in rare cases having mastered it technically to the point were they can deliver whatever music demands of it while at the same time understanding and maturely interpreting the creations of the greatest compositional minds of the centuries convey a message that all of humanity can appreicate. When such individuals also have available to them the most beautiful sounding instruments that have ever been created, it should be the goal of the best audio equipment manufacturers to contribute to the accurate recreation of that message. Sadly, there is little profit anymore in any of this. What passes for music to most people now is a purely commercial product of little value or interest either immediate or long term. Some of us were fortunate to have had the opportunity to choose to own and enjoy some of the equipment whose makers had this purpose in mind.

[kkantor]

Enduring truth: populism is at odds with elitism.

In audio, as in many other hobbies, the "high end" is defined on the basis of exclusivity in distribution and ownership. Widely sold products simply cannot come to be considered high end, no matter what their relative performance. It is very difficult to find any real and lasting exceptions to this rule. And it takes a talented and secure customer to listen for the best sound, regardless of the label.

[charger3834]

>Enduring truth: populism is at odds with elitism.

>

>In audio, as in many other hobbies, the "high end" is defined

>on the basis of exclusivity in distribution and ownership.

>Widely sold products simply cannot come to be considered high

>end, no matter what their relative performance. It is very

>difficult to find any real and lasting exceptions to this

>rule. And it takes a talented and secure customer to listen

>for the best sound, regardless of the label.

Very well said indeed ! From what yourself and others have expressed, It would seem that elitism is a core issue.

[Guest Jstas]

I think the major problem is that people get speakers and other audio equipment as status symbols and/or furniture. They seem to have fogotten what speakers are for. If you are buying speakers as furniture or to hide them in the walls then, really, sound quality is not your MO. Sure, speakers should look nice. If they looked like hell, nobody would buy them! Hence the fancy wood finishes and patterned grille cloth.

Along the lines of what others have said so far is also the idea of exclusivity. I have a 2001 Ford F-150 SVT Lightning. They made more Ferraris in 2001 than they did Lightnings yet, because it looks like a normal F-150 with ground effects, everyone laughs when I call it an American Exotic. Hell, some people are going to laugh here too. Really, it fits the bill of an exotic: limited production/availability, excessivly high level of performance and large price tag. While it wasn't cheap, it certainly wasn't expensive by far. It'll wipe the floor with some of the lesser Ferraris and it'll still carry home 4x8 sheets of plywood. So just because it didn't cost me over 100 large and is a big dirty truck, it doesn't get the exclusive title that it should because it doesn't fit popular opinion.

Given that idea, AR, KLH, Advent and even some of the newer companies like Polk and JBL put out extremely nice equipment. Infact, some of the Polk and AR speakers get rated higher than speakers in classes above them! However, eventhough they have high end performance with low-end price tags, they still get poo-poo'ed by those who have a superiority complex. Infact, the set of KLH 17's I grabbed from ToastedAlmond have blown the socks off quite a few people who have heard them. They can't believe that such an ugly green speaker that is over 30 years old could sound so good. A friend of mine was even going to sell the brand new Polks he bought and see if he could find a set of KLH 17's himself.

The way I see the problem is, it's snobbery. Because AR doesn't use titanium coated, poly-aluminum, unobtanium cones in its drivers or thermo-nuclear, iridium domes in its tweeters or build its cabinets out of burled walnut and mahogany trees from Madagascar, most people see them as less and don't see the justification of what they think is "too much money for such a speaker." What they don't realize is the amount of engineering that goes into the speakers that makes them cost so much for such financially cheap materials. Yet they sound so good for such a comparativly small investment.

Personally, I do not think of speakers and audio equipment as low, mid or high end. I see it as foo-foo and engineered. I'd rather buy ancient AR or KLH or Carver speakers or new Polk Audio, AR or any number of "mid-ranged" companies because I know the designers didn't build a status symbol. They built a speaker. So yes, I would gladly take any "high-end" stuff, foo-foo or not because some the high end stuff truely is high end but a good deal of it is foo-foo frilly stuff that really doesn't do any better than something I can go and buy at Radio Shack or Best Buy.

So let them bash AR and tell me I am wasting my money. I'll tell them that I at least wasted a hell of alot less money than they did and still got the same result! I'm going to keep buying both new and old products from such "lesser" companies because I know what my ears like and I know what a live concert sounds like. I'm happy with my purchases and equipment and if people don't like my choices, I'll ask them to come and listen. If it doesn't change thier mind well then, I guess ignorance really is bliss so I'll let them live in thier own foo-foo world.

[Guest Bret]

>populism is at odds with elitism<

May I be an elite populist? I don't think I can manage being a popular elitist.

There are all levels of snobbery. There are snobs about VW Microbuses; not enthusiasts, but snobs.

Taking a hint from my own industry, they just have to say something all the time, even if it is pure crap. They have to promote stuff, cause if they don't, then they don't sell stuff. If they don't sell stuff their incomes go away. Nobody advertises and sells new AR3a's, so you can't say "Do yourself a favor and go buy some 35 year old speakers," and hope to stay in business very long.

It's like watching "the war" on CNN, CNNFN, CNN Headline News, Fox, MSNBC, etc., etc., etc. (like my Yule Brenner impression?). They have to have "breaking news" even if it is the same "breaking news" that was broken 24 hours ago, was glued back together, and was broken all over again by shoving it off a war correspondent's inflated ego.

And I suppose there is the fact that nobody can imagine a 35 year old computer being "up to snuff" with new ones, and certainly 35 year old cars aren't as good as new ones, and a 35 year old TV is gonna suck compared to a new one, so why shouldn't "new" speakers be better than 35 year old speakers? Seems pretty obvious to me that old speakers can't be as good as new ones.

So the question remains, why are they? And other than for love and money, why would reviewers refuse to say so?

Bret

CAD doesn't improve everything.

[kkantor]

Hey, it's not all marketing. Speaker design hasn't been totally stagnant for three decades... there are areas of progress. Sure, the AR9 (etc) remains world-class speaker, but it doesn't obviate all further engineering efforts.

- Spatialization is better understood and more consistently achieved.

- The best of modern midrange is better, overall.

- Very small speakers with acceptable performance, designs making use of better magnets and materials, and which exploit the ready availablity of Watts, are a fairly recent breed.

Further, good commercial product designs must consider, to a certain extent, trends in how music is made and how it is recorded. The range and distribution of sound power as a function of frequency is one obvious example. Preferred directivity patterns are another. But there's a much stickier underlying issue that your questions about progress in speaker design implies:

Science has barely scratched the surface of understanding exactly what a speaker should do and how it should be measured. I can't possibly overstate how primitive our knowledge of the acoustics and psychoacoustics of sound reproduction is at this point in history. Lacking a simple metric of "goodness" for speakers, such as exist for power amps and CD players, results in a designer being forced develop each new product based on insight, skill and personal preference, further using an arbitrary collection of recordings and test signals to tune with.

The resulting choices might or might not overlap well with what a certain customer or reviewer finds important. So designers flounder on, always hoping that it might be possible to create a product for listeners to whom an existing product does not already strike an unbeatable compromise. Does that make the newer speaker "better" than the old? No, since we have no secure standards of better. But the newer speaker might make a given customer happier with their sound, just as an AR9 fan is dismissing the new product as a giant step backwards. Of course, I am referring here to choices between superior examples. The mass of modern speakers stink. The mass of 1970's speakers stank.

[Guest Bret]

>But the newer speaker might make a given customer happier with their sound, just as an AR9 fan is dismissing the new product as a giant step backwards. <

All right, all right, point taken. . . in the gut as well as intellectually. ;-)

But let's discuss that "given customer." Or not. I'll just opine that many modern customers have never even heard a good pair of loudspeakers. I'll further opine that many speaker-designers (present company excluded, of course) design to both a price-point and the marketing department's desire to have them A/B well (i.e., sound very dramatic, brilliant, stunning)

But I really do take your meaning. I'm SURE there is a pair of speakers out there that if I ever heard them I'd get all emotional and just *have* to have them - even if they aren't classic AR.

But I'll bet I couldn't afford them. The modern speaker designs I have heard that I can't afford didn't impress me.

Well, that's not entirely true. I have marveled at how good some sound when they only appear to have the right to sound like a "All-Transistor" AM pocket radio circa 1968.

Do you have a favorite current speaker I ought to listen-to next time I'm in a real city with all them-thar big-city audio salons?

Maybe you'll have to get me a pass to summer CES and I'll go listen. McCormick Place still? That's where it was last time I was there, in 1983 I think it was. We have a direct flight to Chicago on Southwest. Cheap, too. ;-)

Here's a good question to ask you: The fight with tweeter design seemed to used to be to get a tiny speaker to handle power, right? That lead Allison et al to design the domes and later fill 'em will cooling-juice, right? We were down to .75", the smaller the better the dispersion, right/wrong?

Okay, so now we're going the other way. 1" domes seem to be the rule today. Is the miasium plasma-fused material changing the physics of "littler is better?" I have no way of knowing objectively, therefore I ask.

Bret

CAD doesn't improve everything.

[ToastedAlmond]

I think Ken nailed it on the head with, "..it takes a very talented and secure customer...".

A secure customer. That's me.

Toasted Almond

[ninohernes]

>But I really do take your meaning. I'm SURE there is a pair

>of speakers out there that if I ever heard them I'd get all

>emotional and just *have* to have them - even if they aren't

>classic AR.

>

>But I'll bet I couldn't afford them. The modern speaker

>designs I have heard that I can't afford didn't impress me.

Same here. When my father and I went speaker shopping a few months ago, we went to lots of upscale audio salons, we listened to speakers costing $10,000 or more. Of course, the salesman looks at me, I being 16 years old, expecting my jaw to be on the floor, and all I can say is it doesn’t sound that great. The salesman started going on and on about how it is the most expensive design, and features the latest technology, and this is what realy made me mad, he said it sounds better than any boom box you have in your room. (That infuriated me, I have AR-2's a dynaco preamp and a hafler amp, interconected to thousands of dolars of premium Tascam analog recording equipment, dosen't sound like a boom box to me.) Then I said, remember the old AR-3, the man stunned that I actually knew what the AR-3 was, said yes, I said that sounds better than this stuff.

That’s when my father and I decided to get a pair of old AR-3's. I restored them, and they sound great!

When we were speakers shopping, my father really wanted AR speakers, he was just curious to se what was hot shit today. He had used the AR-2's his entire life, until he gave them to me to use in my studio. His dream speaker as a child, was always the AR-3. He had the AR-2's when he was a kid, but he really wanted the 3's. And now he's got them. In my dream recording studio, I want oiled teak AR-3a's.

[soundminded]

Ken, I am glad that you brought up the point;

"Science has barely scratched the surface of understanding exactly what a speaker should do and how it should be measured. I can't possibly overstate how primitive our knowledge of the acoustics and psychoacoustics of sound reproduction is at this point in history."

I have come to the tentative conclusion that the best a speaker can hope to do is make the reproduction of musical instruments sound as much like the original as possible on the widest number of carefully made recordings. Given that there is no standard for making recordings, it is hardly surprising that a given speaker sounding accurate reproducing one recording could sound highly inaccurate reproducing another. Also, remarkably little thought has been given to the way in which speakers interact with the rooms that they are placed in. Even to the degree that level controls are no longer installed on most speakers of any design seems like a step backwards. So called serious audiophiles categorically reject valuable tools such as equalizers which no professional sound system installer or designer would omit while debating endlessly over expensive unpredictable and possibly useless products such as special wires.

It seems to me absurd that anyone could expect a single pair of loudspeakers to accurately reproduce the effect of a hundred piece orchestra spread uniformly over a 90 degree or more angle let alone the acoustics of a half million cubic foot concert hall which cannot even be recorded at this stage of technology.

Joe, I also hoped one day to own AR3s or AR3as. But alas it was not to be. I just have to settle for my AR9s.

[Guest Jstas]

>Science has barely scratched the surface of understanding

>exactly what a speaker should do and how it should be

>measured. I can't possibly overstate how primitive our

>knowledge of the acoustics and psychoacoustics of sound

>reproduction is at this point in history. Lacking a simple

>metric of "goodness" for speakers, such as exist for power

>amps and CD players, results in a designer being forced

>develop each new product based on insight, skill and personal

>preference, further using an arbitrary collection of

>recordings and test signals to tune with.

>

>The resulting choices might or might not overlap well with

>what a certain customer or reviewer finds important. So

>designers flounder on, always hoping that it might be possible

>to create a product for listeners to whom an existing product

>does not already strike an unbeatable compromise. Does that

>make the newer speaker "better" than the old? No, since we

>have no secure standards of better. But the newer speaker

>might make a given customer happier with their sound, just as

>an AR9 fan is dismissing the new product as a giant step

>backwards. Of course, I am referring here to choices between

>superior examples. The mass of modern speakers stink. The

>mass of 1970's speakers stank.

I do believe that you will never find this nirvana of a standard to compare speakers to. Why? Because what I think sounds good may be total trash to you. Hence the reason a company like Bose is so big. Marketing has alot to do with it but most people haven't heard other speakers that will cost you a couple grand. They see the price tag on the Bose speakers for roughly a grand. They see the size of other speakers costing roughly a grand. Since they haven't heard those speakers and the average layperson knows nothing of speaker dynamics, they think "Hey! Lookit how small dis here ting is maw! Sounds purty good!" and they are hooked.

So, we now have a pseudo-informed buyer who thinks they have seen the end-all be-all of speakers because the Bose salesman was whispering in thier ear about how great they are the whole time. So they make an uniformed decision about what they think sounds good and go with the first thing that hits them. That is only one case.

The other case is people like you would find here. They have an educated ear and mind and know what to look for and what the numbers mean. They are then, very critical and discerning about thier selections. No two will fully agree as to what is the best sound. Therefore, if there is not agreement (or is it agreeance(sic)?) how can there be a defined standard? Afterall, standards are not set by some cosmic force. They are set by humans who have agreed upon what should be the standard.

So what I am saying in so many words is, there will never be an agred upon standard for several reasons. First and foremost is, people don't agree. They have thier own standards and believe it or not, those standards change everyday. Why? Because the technology is progressing farther and farther. We see on a regular basis new advances in semi-conductor technology. We see new advances in transistor technolgies and even processing capabilities. Since technology is advancing, the standard will not stay the same. If the technology doesn't stay the same then certainly opinions will change also.

So I don't think we will ever see a "standard" for speakers and I don't think we have even seen a standard for electronics. Even CD players are split between SACD and standard CD. As long as we make technological progress, electronics based industries will never be able to set a standard, unless they are on the cutting edge and defining the advances themselves.

As far as modern speakers being junk. I have to disagree. While most are either way over-rated or way over priced, alot depands on what you are driving those speakers with. Technology used in modern digital audio gear has produced a more manufacturered and programmed sound. Hence the resurgence in tube-amplification. However, I have driven the same set of Polk RT70's with a modern transistorized amplifier and an "arcane" tube amplifier that I built myself. When connected to the different amplifiers, they sound like different speakers. I have also done this with my KLH 17's and a set of old Electro-Voice speakers. Both sets sound like completely different spekaers when hooked to a different signal/power source. I have to stress that the speakers are only one variable in the whole listening environment. Even the size and shape of the room make a huge difference in how a speaker will sound.

[Guest Jstas]

>Of course, the

>salesman looks at me, I being 16 years old, expecting my jaw

>to be on the floor, and all I can say is it doesn’t sound that

>great. The salesman started going on and on about how it is

>the most expensive design, and features the latest technology,

>and this is what realy made me mad, he said it sounds better

>than any boom box you have in your room. (That infuriated me,

>I have AR-2's a dynaco preamp and a hafler amp, interconected

>to thousands of dolars of premium Tascam analog recording

>equipment, dosen't sound like a boom box to me.)

I've had this same experience. I'm only 25 but, when I was 16-18, I was going into the "little guy" stores looking for stereo equipment. It soured my experience because of the way I was treated. I stayed away from it and got into car stereo/audio because the people were much more accepting and would answer my questions without the attitude. Now however, I get a different form of predjudice. I get the looks of total disbelief that I can afford anything in thier store. I've also told salesman that the stuff they are showing me sounds like hell. One guy actually stood there and got mad, called me a punk kid and said I probably had nothing but subwoofers in the trunk of my car and one of those huge JVC boombox/shelf system in my room. He then told me that I should run home and ask my dad if it was OK if I used his American Express card. Never mind that my name is on the card. It's aggravating the "elitness" with which some of these salesman act.

I feel your pain man. Maybe not so much now, but I was where you are at one point. Only thing is, I didn't have anyone with me backing me up. My dad isn't too interested in audio stuff so I was always going by myself. If you can imagine how difficult that would be based on your experiences with your dad. Heh, it got so bad, I started ordering parts by mail order and building my own electronic equipment.

[ninohernes]

I get a bit more respect now, that I have recorded some famous musicians. When I go looking at hi fi gear, I bring along a cd of the work I have done. I have recorded, Denis Jeter (Wynton Marsalis personal assistant) playing with Jazz pianast "Spike" Wilner. This is only a fraction of my work. For more info on Spike, click here http://www.xcent.com/aaj/directory/display...r&ArtistID=1215

For info on Denis Jeter click here http://www.dennisjeter.com/

Denis and Spike were coaches at the music camp that I went to last year, I was the recording engineer. Unfortunatly none of the recordings are on any of thier albums yet, but I will be trying to contact them again to see if they want to use them.

[roundhome]

Hello

On speakers sounding different with different equipmet.

I have a forty foot dome with a 24 foot ceiling in it are two AR9s And two Ar3 with layns crossover and wire upgrade.

Then I have A aiwa system with a acoustic feet back in it.

Every time I move the speakers around and switch the feedback in and out I get a vary different sound but one thing with the feedback on the room comes to life and is vary full.

The amps that feed them are two spec4s for the 9s and a spec two for the threes.

I'm still trying to find the right place for them and will be adding my LSTIIs when the are finished.

But found that using the new dts cds the room has more clarity in all the spectrums in the room.

Just woundering, Ken Kantor are you working on something like the feedback system. for matching the speakers to the room ?

Jim

[Guest Brian_D]

There's a local audio store here that I refuse to shop in because of just this type of eliteist attitude. It's the kind of place that has tons of audio equipment all over the store, some in boxes some not. I spotted a couple of AR boxes, one amp and one turntable... who knows if there was anything in them, but you never know with some of these places.

Anyway, I go in there just to ask about turntables, what they had in stock, who they liked these days for an entry level model, yadda yadda and I imediately get the eyes rolled back in their heads when I mention AR. "The AR turntable was overrated" they say. And if I want a real turntable I should look into someone called ClearAudio or something like that. Whatever.

So he asks about my system and I say "Well, it's a pair of AR9's biamped with two AudioSource AMP3's..." and I imediately get the eyeroll again. I'm so irritated at this point I say "What's the problem?" He just shakes his head and says "Those Japanese amps won't do the 9's justice." I tell him that I agree but my room is very small and I listen to mostly digital sources and, by the way, AudioSource equipment is designed and manufactured in San Fransisco California, a-hole. So I continue with the layout of my system and he just keeps rolling his eyes when I mention something that He doesn't sell. So I ask again about an entry-level turntable and he starts trying to sell me some $3000 preamp and $200 interconnects.

I tell him I have a very nice Bozak preamp that has inputs for ceramic and moving magnet coils and he rolls his eyes again. At this point I've had it and the owner walks in (who isn't any better than joe slick I've got in front of me) and I say "FINE. I was going to buy a turntable today, and probably an EQ too, but every time I come in here you people make me feel bad about my system. It's not like I just threw it together, I really put time and thought into it and I like it, which is what matters."

And then, the coup de grace, I hear the owner ask if "that's they guy with the AR9's" and the salesman says "yeah, but he only listens to rap." (As if a Rap fan would ask for a turntable, or have vintage audio equipment)

I just turned and walked out. I'll never go back there again. NEVER.

Sorry, had to vent. Have a nice day.

[Guest Jstas]

We have a store like that here that's called Tweeter. I'm sure its in other places too and a few people I know rave about the place. Maybe its different in other places, I don't know. I only have my local stores to go on. Used to be Bryn Mawr Stereo and Video. While they do have some nice stuff, about the only thing I have ever purchased there has been car audio fuses. I need a 60 amp BUSS style cylinder fuse for my truck and no one carries a 60 amp fuse except for this store. They have the elitist attitude and the store slogan is "A boat load of know how." I don't agree, although there are exceptions. I just find it so discouraging that I am looked down upon because of my age yet I have more experience that most of thier sales staff, combined. I have gone into the store asking to look at Yamaha equipment and they call over one of the kids from the car stereo "closet" to help me. They usually ask me why I was asking them and send me over to the home theater sections anyway.

I realize that some of the forum particpants who are more advanced in age may think that rants like this are taken up under the folly of "teenaged angst" or what have you. It is a legitimate rant though. I have seen these salesmen and installers actually try to take advantage of younger shoppers because of thier percieved lack of experience and knowledge in the field. I have stepped in to "defend" my brethren of like age discrimination on several occasions, much to the dismay of said salesman. I was even asked to leave a Circuit City because one of the salesmen was extolling the virtues of insanely expensive speaker wire when in reality, he was pontificating from his posterior regions. The customers who were listening to his tripe found it interesting as I attempted to explain to him how cross-sectional area, line impedance and material purity had alot more to do with the quality of a wire than pretty colors and fancy names. I think I ruined a sale for him. I realize that was a rather nasty thing to do to the poor guy but I so dislike seeing people with the elitist attitude trying to take advantage of anyone really that I can't stand idly by if I am within ear shot anymore.

Sometimes I want to open my own store just so people have a place where they can go and get honest answers to questions. There is so much misinformation floating around this hobby like the AR myths and its all due to the elitist attitudes. A perfect example is the AR turntables. They were reviewed as being some of the best on the market and even some new turntables are pretty much exact copies of the AR turntables. Even Pioneer is said to have the best one for less than 200 dollars and that copies alot of the AR internals. I have the Pioneer turntable at home and it is an excellent unit. If that salesman is using the fact that you are looking for a turntable as evidence of "only listening to rap" then he really is out of touch. I believe that the most popular turntable for the DJ's and rap artists is the Technics T-1011 I think it is? I know it is a Technics though and it's preferred because it is not only reversible but, the drive mechanism for the table can be disengaged to allow for "scratching" and "sampling".

Ugh! I can't stand people sometimes.

Sorry, I'll stop ranting now.

[kkantor]

Hi. This is a great thread, and I hope to comment more when work lets up. Several very insightful contributions.

I need to know more about what you call "speaker feedback" to comment. The stuff I am doing is based on new math and engineering concepts, and so isn't directly related to any current technology that I am aware of. Of course, it has its close cousins. The idea is to define aspects of the sound that give a better picture of what the ear responds to than "frequency response" does. Once you have this, you can do a better job with automatic "room correction," per our large sub. But you can also do a better job engineering conventional speakers, which is what we are in the process of doing, for ourselves and for our customers. I've been promising myself I would post various white papers and information on the website, but I haven't yet.

[kkantor]

Quick version:

There's no right answer about tweeter size and directionality, just like there is no right answer about microphone pattern. You pick your poison... each decision has its costs and benefits. Mainly, budgets have gone down and amp power has gone up. That means 1" tweeters win. Also, there are virtually no indie tweeter makes around anymore. So you have to buy what is already popular.

Summer CES??? Sorry, there hasn't been a Summer CES in many years...