Jump to content

Why did AR do the LST?


Steve F

Recommended Posts

Why did AR do the LST? That’s an intriguing question. The first thing you need to know is that products take a very long time to go from a ‘napkin sketch’ to finished goods that are shipping out the door. If it’s a product based on an existing product—filling in a gap in an existing product line, like, say, the AR-5—then those can be done in perhaps 9 months to a year, at the very fastest. It just takes longer than people realize to design things, prototype them, get sample parts in, approve them, fend off the inevitable schedule-ruining interference from the “higher-ups,” etc. etc. That’s for an AR-5, about as “simple” a design/introduction process as a company is likely to have.

The LST was intro’d in fall 1971, meaning it was probably a glimmer in someone’s eye at AR in 1969. In 1969, AR still ruled the roost. Advent and EPI hadn’t yet made any impact and the 4x-[1st-gen]2ax-3a were the stars of the day.

So did Roy Allison say to someone, “You know, we could do this speaker with four ea. of the 3a’s mids and tweets, angle them and the thing would have truly flat power response in the forward hemisphere. Recording studios would eat it up, they’d jump at the opportunity to have a recording monitor as accurate, and repeatable as their best electronics.”

Maybe he or someone else actually said that.

Or maybe it was something like, “You know, if we took 4 ea. of the 3a’s mids and tweets, angled them, we’d have a speaker that could handle enough power in the mid-high end to have a flat power response in the forward hemisphere. We could do it. It’d be cool.”

“Why would we want to do that? What the heck would we do with it? Who’d buy it?”

“Beats the heck outta me. But we’d get great reviews and publicity for having the “World’s Best Speaker,” and we could leverage that PR to the bank. Who knows? Maybe some recording studio would want the thing.”

And then in a very rare stroke of marketing genius, AR decided to sell the LST to individuals only by “special permission”: the customer had to place an order at an ‘authorized’ AR LST dealer, pay for them up front, and then IIRC, AR would ship them directly to the customer’s home. Ooooooo…..so secret…..so special. (In time, of course, you could simply buy them at the store.)

As a product, the LST was one of the truly great audio products of all time. The autotransformer feature must’ve taken quite a while to design and perfect, as did the decision on what the spectral balance would be for each of the six transformer positions. I can imagine hours of listening and many hours of arguing. I’ve been there, many times. I’ve read that AR minimized the inevitable interference between all those closely-spaced mids and tweeters and that also must’ve taken a lot of prototype cabinets and a lot of listening and measuring.

Remember also, the LST was done eons before there was today’s degree of automated computer analysis and measurement, so every curve was swept individually, mic placed by hand, the pen scrolling out the curve on the moving graph paper. Tedious.

Considering the amount of discussion over exactly what to make, how many drivers, pointing in what direction at what angle (this is known as the ‘product definition,’ and settling on a hard def—a “frozen def” as we say— is often the hardest part of the entire process), the drawing of the cab, sending it out for samples, getting quotes from prospective vendors (assuming anyone even wanted to make a crazy cabinet like that!), doing all the measurements and listening, etc.----man! I’m surprised they could do this in just two years. Maybe they started the LST in 1965!

Gentlemen, you simply listen to and enjoy the LST as a finished speaker. But as someone who has spent many decades on the inside and has been part of the conception/engineering/manufacturing/marketing process for countless products from Bose, BA and Atlantic Technology, I can’t even begin to imagine the complexity involved in bringing an earth-shattering product like the LST to market. Even beyond the “Manhattan Project” nature of the nearly-equally-impossible AR9, because the LST was done mostly by hand. (Much like Apollo 13 that flew to the moon in 1969, being designed and engineered mostly by hand.)

However much you respect and admire this speaker, double it. No, quadruple it.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The drivers in the LST were known-quantity "off the shelf" models, which must have given the project a bit of a conceptual "goose" to begin with; that, and building upon the their flagship AR-3a - "the best speaker we know how to make" - almost certainly distinguished the development of the LST from a "clean sheet of paper" design.

That said, two years really doesn't seem like enough time to build a product of this magnitude.

And that cabinet! It's as rock-solid as anything to ever come from AR, and it must have been a nightmare to prototype and build.

The result was an unusually beautiful cabinet that combined design cues from its Classic-era predecessors with the no-nonsense, form-follows-function appearance of a professional component.

If I ever get a shot at a driving-distance pair of good LST's, I'm not going to hesitate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear fellows,

I agree with everything said here.

And, I'm so happy, I'm too happy!

fm

P.S. And as winter approaches, I can almost look forward to what has become my vinyl record cleaning months as being shut in, it's a good day's project

Typically I (VPI16.5) clean enough records to listen to into the spring and certainly there after. On good days I do about 40 records.

And that brings up another point, what did the AR engineers use for 'program-material' in their testing?

I must assume large-format tape, and of course what else, vinyl records.

I often wonder what tape decks and turntables they used, not to mention which pre-amps and amps. Could've been a top Mac, even a Dyna tube or SS.

Some feel, Phase Linear was born out of the need to power such power hogs as the LST.

I can imagine in that period, the best of the best was used for their top speaker.

That could also possibly be a top of the line Tascam or Revox tape decks, etc. Other top choices might have been an SME arm, a top of the line phono-cartridge, and possibly a Technics SP10 or Thorens table, or pro/studio components?

I realize in that 'Golden-Era', many manufacturer's top of the line components were used in professional venues as well because the 'Hi-Fi' arena was in my estimation as being a strong fan much bigger than it ever was from 1968 to about 1980 and were the peak years with out doubt.

I could be very wrong, but I 'm thinking of what was available at the time.

In those years I thought I was king of the mountain with my AR-3a and Dynaco equipment.

Actually my tastes haven't changeded much at all, I still use components made from 1968-72 (TT), Amps (1974-80), speakers (1972), go figure.

My program-material is vinyl from about the same years, alright much '80s & '90s rock, and classical music and jazz from their respective years.

The only new item I use that has progressed largely are my phono-cartridges and they were all made with-in the two last years or less.

And for all of you 'non-believers', phono cartridges although utilize the same basic technology, how ever certain design improvements have been made and their sound is tremendously improved!

*Up-Date: My $1,500. bid for that auction pair of LSTs has been beat.

I almost feel relieved as my biggest worry was the shipping risks but, I can assure you, if they come up again and with-in a 200 mile drive, they'll be mine.

Thing is I don't have anymore room for anything else while my third pair sit idle as it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not had the good fortune of ever being in the presence of an LST to view or hear. As I was briefly considering that pair that just sold on EBay since they were here in town, I was curious about what type of room they are best suited for? I have this bad tendency of purchasing speakers not particularly suited for my room size of 13x13.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AR-LST speakers are typical best suited for 'far-field' listening.

My present listening room is 13X25 feet and they sound really good however it is not a perfect room due to window placement, etc.

Originally, they were in a room 17X12 and their sound suffered somewhat.

However, I find in the present room, the further one is from the front wall where they are located, the bass is even bigger and more pronounced.

fm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mine in the kitchen...talk about lousy acoustics! But I still love them and will never think of selling them. Hopefully I'll have another home where there's a better place to put and listen to them.

Wonderful speakers. :)

post-102118-0-67191400-1447256489_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have mine in the kitchen...talk about lousy acoustics! But I still love them and will never think of selling them. Hopefully I'll have another home where there's a better place to put and listen to them.

Wonderful speakers. :)

Wow.

With that collection, it's worth building an addition onto the house! ^_^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11-11-15

As many would agree, room placement and listening position is pivotal!

My current set-up is the best I’ve heard my LST’s sound. It is also the third room/house I’ve had them in, the problem was the former rooms were smaller and so they suffered and sounded nothing like they sound presently.

Speaking to your point Xmas111, if it were me, I’d remove the other speakers you have in that room and then move your LSTs a bit closer together and providing better stands.

When I moved into this present home, my biggest goal was to use this living room strictly for my LSTs. I have another room waiting to be cleared and used for my AR-9s in the front with perhaps AR-3as for rear/side-channels.

The third room will be used for my other pair of LSTs along with AR-3as for rear channels.

The rear-channel idea is waiting on what actual direction I take as I’m really a two channel person. I firmly believe if your two channel system is performing as well as can be then there’s no real need for more channels. Though I thought of using the third room for a huge TV screen and that may determine how many channels I use?

I feel that with three large rooms at my disposal, I may as well use one for video and devote other two systems solely for musical enjoyment which I’m much more into than watching movies.

The possible video room would be for visitors and guests who are into that sort of thing but, the video audio will be supplied through AR speakers and not some rinky-dink 5.1 speakers that have seemingly taken root in the modern culture.

I have enough large amplifiers (pending rebuild), and speakers to build a ‘total-immersion’ video experience- I just have to do much designing and configuring each room before I set-up anything.

I really look forward to putting together the AR-9 music room, which is as big as the LST room of 13X25 feet. I already have the AR-9 room’s equipment set-up, but the room has become a holding room for the 'stuff' I hoarded into it from my last house, so I don’t go in there too often except to look at what the future holds for me. The possible video room is merely on the back-burner for now.

It’s just that lately, I’m enjoying listening to several new phono cartridges and having such a ball playing vinyl exclusively. Plus, my arse is only getting bigger sitting around and researching and thinking about my options. As I’ve aged, and lived through many rough and tumble situations of life’s experiences, I’ve become more like a turtle than a rabbit.

Being a stubborn owner of power hungry speakers necessitates big amps like the ones I have on hand waiting to be rebuilt. But, with my old amps, it’s difficult to find a reputable re-builder.

Vintage equipment lovers like myself never seem to be finished putting their systems together, though I believe that’s part of the fun and enjoyment?

Regarding your LSTs, you’ll be stunned how great and huge sounding they will be once the room is appropriately accommodating them. I'm sure you're aware that they require big amps to get their ‘big-sound’ to your ears. It’s like pets; a small dog can run around the house, but owning a horse requires a separate and large area to live in along with many other necessary particulars.

fm

P.S. Becoming an AR speaker hoarder, I find it has created its own set of problems, like what do I do with these speakers, or those speakers. Besides them all needing work, I've become overwhelmed and complacent with my collection as I might guess many do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks guys, that helps me get a feel for the scale of teh LST's. XMas the photo helps as well.

As an architect I always think of things in terms of scale. Everything has a scale it is best suited for and acoustics takes that to another level.

The LST is not a small speaker. For that matter, the sound from the 3 isn't either.

I have a larger room upstairs that is the main Family fun room with the hometheater etc. I may need to transition some of my larger scale gear into that and keep the tube system with Wharfedales down in the lounge where I mostly listen to jazz anyway which is very good with tubes and Wharfies.

Or, I sell of some of my larger room loving speakers......Noooooooo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did AR do the LST? That’s an intriguing question. The first thing you need to know is that products take a very long time to go from a ‘napkin sketch’ to finished goods that are shipping out the door. If it’s a product based on an existing product—filling in a gap in an existing product line, like, say, the AR-5—then those can be done in perhaps 9 months to a year, at the very fastest. It just takes longer than people realize to design things, prototype them, get sample parts in, approve them, fend off the inevitable schedule-ruining interference from the “higher-ups,” etc. etc. That’s for an AR-5, about as “simple” a design/introduction process as a company is likely to have.

The LST was intro’d in fall 1971, meaning it was probably a glimmer in someone’s eye at AR in 1969. In 1969, AR still ruled the roost. Advent and EPI hadn’t yet made any impact and the 4x-[1st-gen]2ax-3a were the stars of the day.

So did Roy Allison say to someone, “You know, w....

Steve F.

What was that AR-5 reviewer's comment? Something about AR finally got it right. Was it Julian Hirsch?

Anyway, then there were the dismal sales figures on the AR-5.

Maybe RoyA said we are all familiar with the 3a's shortcomings. I can solve those and put some of my/our speaker/room interface theories to work at the same time to make a better speaker yet.

I doubt the LST had massive sales figures either but, hey, they were on top and they could afford to be idealists. And wasn't that the era for that anyway?

If the AR-3 series was the sales icon of AR, the LST was the icon of their genius during the Classic period. Then came the bean counters or did the AR-9 precede them?

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Teledyne so bad owner for AR as it has usually been suggested?

AR3a, ARLST and AR9 were products of early Teledyne years, so first 10 Teledyne years do not look to bad to me. It is true that later AR lost focus, but this is not necessrily due to the ownersip of Teledyne.

Cost cutting like vinyl veneer occurred in early Teledyne years... but I suppose if this technology had bee available economically earlier, AR4 and AR4x may have been vinyl veneered. My experience with early models is next to nothing... but it looks like stamped steel baskets were only clear cost cutting actions in 60´s... but was Teledyne responsible for this?

Owners do expect dividents for investment... but staff is after all responsible for business operations.

Any inside information available?

Best Regards

Kimmo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Teledyne so bad owner for AR as it has usually been suggested?

AR3a, ARLST and AR9 were products of early Teledyne years, so first 10 Teledyne years do not look to bad to me. It is true that later AR lost focus, but this is not necessrily due to the ownersip of Teledyne.

Cost cutting like vinyl veneer occurred in early Teledyne years... but I suppose if this technology had bee available economically earlier, AR4 and AR4x may have been vinyl veneered. My experience with early models is next to nothing... but it looks like stamped steel baskets were only clear cost cutting actions in 60´s... but was Teledyne responsible for this?

Owners do expect dividents for investment... but staff is after all responsible for business operations.

Any inside information available?

Best Regards

Kimmo

No inside info from me but I'd count foam woofer surrounds as both a cost cutting method and a step backwards in sound reproduction capability. And as far as I know, the LST never had anything other than woofers with foam surrounds.

der

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I became aware of the LST models MANY years after I bought the Allison One loudspeaker system. Both of course, were the design of Roy Allison. So I originally thought the prism design of the One was the FIRST of those wide dispersion type configurations. I suppose at this point I will never get a chance to hear the LST, though I do know one person who was able to listen and compare the two models, describing them as more similar than different, with a flatter response measurement coming from the A1.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a friend that had 4 LST's running into a Phase Linear 700b amp. 35 years later, i'm still mad at him for selling them & not selling them to me.

Probably he had them series wired to handle that ohm load.

35 years ago I also had a Phase Linear, but the smaller one (400). In those days that was a real brut. @200 per channel at 8ohm.

I have stuck with Bob Carver ever since. Eleven years after the Phase started giving me problems, I went to the Carver 1.0t bridged as mono blocks.

And now, to The Sunfire multichannel amp. also Bob Carvers design.

Now, on my second version of Roy Allison's prism designed speakers the IC-20.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

der

As far as I have been told... foam surrounds do have some properties that other surronds do not have. It is true that they do rot and propably are cheaper to make... Tom may be able to tell was this decision done to improve woofer or just make it cheaper to produce.

Best Regards

Kimmo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

der

As far as I have been told... foam surrounds do have some properties that other surronds do not have. It is true that they do rot and propably are cheaper to make... Tom may be able to tell was this decision done to improve woofer or just make it cheaper to produce.

Best Regards

Kimmo

Roy Allison definitely used foam surrounds on many of his woofer designs for sonic improvement, not as a cost reduction factor.

In 2012, I had my original woofers refoamed and also had the spiders replaced during that process. The spiders are all too often overlooked. With the age of these systems ,that can be a mistake resulting in double work and expense. When the spider is weak, it's easier for the woofer to go beyond its original excursion design limits and bottom out.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"bean counter", I had to look it up! :lol:

In most cases where a company gets bought the new owner indeed only has I for the money.

A lot of great brands/company's get in to problems because of money over quality.....

Love the American/English slang terminology! Can be hard on those that do not have English as their primary language for sure.

The "bean counters" are what we all blame for what we now have with Sansui, Fisher, Acoustic Research, Pioneer etc. I am sure someone a little higher up the ladder was actually responsible for those decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David

I love this kind of terminology, but it is not always easy to understand like you said...

I heard one truly nice expression here in Finland describing person who does not have sound mind anymore. It goes like "hissi ei kulje enään ullakolle asti". I try to translate the idea of it. It may not be easy to do, but I try anyway. It goes like "elevator does not reach the attic anymore".

Best Regards

Kimmo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard one truly nice expression here in Finland describing person who does not have sound mind anymore. It goes like "hissi ei kulje enään ullakolle asti". I try to translate the idea of it. It may not be easy to do, but I try anyway. It goes like "elevator does not reach the attic anymore".

.....or, nice house.....nobody home

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was Teledyne so bad owner for AR as it has usually been suggested?

AR3a, ARLST and AR9 were products of early Teledyne years, so first 10 Teledyne years do not look to bad to me. It is true that later AR lost focus, but this is not necessrily due to the ownersip of Teledyne.

Cost cutting like vinyl veneer occurred in early Teledyne years... but I suppose if this technology had bee available economically earlier, AR4 and AR4x may have been vinyl veneered. My experience with early models is next to nothing... but it looks like stamped steel baskets were only clear cost cutting actions in 60´s... but was Teledyne responsible for this?

Owners do expect dividents for investment... but staff is after all responsible for business operations.

Any inside information available?

Best Regards

Kimmo

Not sure the LST was a Teledyne era speaker. Aphenos.net has the production years as 1971 to 1976. I believe Teledyne bought AR in 1976. However, I get the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tought that Willchur left the AR in 1967 and sold it toTeledyne.

If Teledyne years do mean something else...please explain as I do not uderstand.

Best Regards

Kimmo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tought that Willchur left the AR in 1967 and sold it toTeledyne.

If Teledyne years do mean something else...please explain as I do not uderstand.

Best Regards

Kimmo

Yes, but part of the agreement stipulated that Roy Allison keep his position for another five years so the LST falls within that time frame. Then it seems Teledyne took awhile adapting to the changing marketplace. It would be interesting to have access to the inside dope on this era leading up to the AR-9.

Roger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...