Jump to content
The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ninohernes

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 07/22/1986

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

3,041 profile views
  1. ninohernes

    I'm still here!

    It has been a while since I posted last, but I'm still here! I graduated from college this past May, and right now I am still looking for work. I currently work at a hifi shop doing repairs and things like that. I also do quite a bit of mastering these days as well. Not many good mastering engineers here in Chicago. Hopefully I will be able to find some steady work before the winter. I'm going to try to stick my head in here a bit more often again. Its nice to see how much this place has grown since I last posted here!! -Joe
  2. This is due in part by the way we hear. At the extremes, both low and high, the human ear is not as sensitive. We preceive midrange frequencies as being the loudest. Since the AR-3a is a farily flat speaker, if you measured the output of the drivers, you would find that their output would be within a few dB of each other.
  3. Read my article in TONE-Audio. http://www.tonepublications.com/images/pdfs/TA_006.pdf page 27. The issue is rather large (41mb) so give it some time to download.
  4. I still use my AR-2's on a regular basis. They are great speakers, and they reside in my studio. I also own AR-3a's as well. I still like the AR-3 better. The alnico super tweeter seems to have this magical quality to it. There is this spooky realistic quality to the high end that I feel is lacking in the later tweeter.
  5. I love my AR-2's! I have mastered a lot of material through them.
  6. Classical music is still the holy grail in my opinion.
  7. >Hi Joe; > >I am interested in your AR-3 monitors. > >Are they stock AR-3's or have they been modified? > >Which version of woofers do they have? > >Obviously all these years later, you have had the opportunity >to hear many other speaker systems. > >Which other speakers would you, disregarding price and budget, >consider as a nearly perfect monitor system, Joe? My AR-3's have been rebuilt. All of the drivers are the original Alnico type. Caps have been replaced with Solen poly caps. I have not done any modifications to them. I like them in their original form. There is no perfect monitor, but my favorite studio monitor is the Rogers LS3/5a. It has been out of production for many years, but it is now again available from Stirling Broadcast http://store.acousticsounds.com/browse_det...?Title_ID=16618. I really love mixing on these. Unfortunately, in today’s studios, most engineers are using powered monitors. While I understand the advantages of powered monitors, I don't like them. I don't want the amplifier to be attached to the speaker. Amplifiers are microphonic devices, and the speaker is vibrating that amp all over the place. Genelec powered monitors are very popular in studios today. They are rather expensive. They don't sound bad, but I would much rather have the Rogers. The studio that I work out of has both, so I generally mix on the Rogers. On the budget side, I am a huge fan of the new ERA design 4 loudspeaker http://www.upscaleaudio.com/updates/era.htm. They are $600 a pair, and they are fantastic! Ordinarily, in a hifi system, I would not even consider a speaker that is under $1000 a pair, but these are truly different. There is none of the harsh grainy characteristics generally associated with sub $1000 speakers. They are also tiny! Don't let the small size fool you, they really sound large! I highly recommend them. Upscale Audio caries them www.upscaleaudio.com Get yourself a pair, you will really be impressed! Now, on the ultra high end, the best loudspeaker I have ever heard are the Venture CR-8 Signature loudspeakers. They have no sound of their own at all. In my opinion, they are as close to a perfect speaker as it gets. http://www.venture-audio.com/default.aspx?catid=55 They are around $35,000 a pair.
  8. Thank-you for the kind words, I appreciate it very much. As for my technique, it is quite simple. One must first have a target. This requires knowledge of the musical form and its associated aesthetic. One must use the recording technology available to serve the music. Too often today, engineers use far too much processing, this shows off their knowledge of the gear but not their abilities as an engineer and or artist. I am not saying that I am a minimalist, but just because you know how to use hundreds of pieces of gear does not mean that you use them all on every project that you work on. EQ, compression, reverb etc are tools that in many cases must be used but they must be used in such a fashion that they help deliver the musical message, not hinder it. The acoustic tracks on the CD I sent Vern were recorded direct to two track high resolution digital with no compression and minimal EQ. For bluegrass music and most other acoustic music, there is no need for excess processing. These wooden instruments are harmonically rich, and even the best signal processors will filter some of these complex harmonics resulting in a recording that lacks the subtle nuances that make this music so emotionally involving. I wish that Vern could have heard the high resolution digital master. It has a level of detail that the CD simply does not. I really wish that I could have tracked those tunes on analog tape. In my opinion, analog recording is capable of capturing far more than even the best digital systems can. Microphone placement and selection is another thing that I spend a lot of time on. Many times, engineers are using EQ to fix poor microphone placement. When I start a tracking session, I never know where I am going to place a microphone. I have a general idea, but to say that I know exactly where it is going to go is ridiculous. To say that you know where it is going to end up is just silly, its different every time! I will generally listen to the instrument, and move my head around it until I find a place or places where the entire sound of the instrument is, and that is where I put the mic. Selection is a little bit more difficult. This just comes with experience. After a while, you learn what most of the mics out there sound like, and you make your selections accordingly. For example, if you have a male vocalist who has load of 2,500 Hz in his voice, you are not going to use a mic like the Neumann TLM-103 which has a bump at 2k5. A more appropriate choice would be a Neumann U47 which is very smooth in the 1k to 4k range. Making good recordings is very simple. If it aint broke, don't fix it. Don't use processing just because you can. If it is the desired aesthetic, go for it, but if not, stay the hell away from those signal processors!!! (even though they look pretty with their flashing lights and meters!!) I have been rather general above. Vern, do you have any specific questions regarding the recordings? If so, feel free to ask! This goes for everyone else as well. If there are any questions regarding any part of the recording process I will do my best to answer them.
  9. Thanks for the great feedback! It means a lot to me and the rest of the TONE staff. I am thinking about writing an article detailing the restoration of a pair of AR speakers. There are a lot of them out there, and they can be had for relatively little money, and when restored, they can beat a lot of the high end stuff made today. You rarely see Alnico magnet speakers today. I love the way Alnico sounds, some people say that the magnet material does not matter, but I disagree.
  10. >Joe, nice job on the AR-3 article! Hmmm... that Oiled-Teak >AR-3 sure looks familiar! > >--Tom Tyson It is such a great photo of a really nice AR-3. The photos I took really did not come out all that well, so we decided used yours. Also, I really like the oiled teak finish!
  11. The new issue of TONE-Audio is now out, and it contains my article on the AR-3 loudspeaker. The magazine is a PDF file, and it is very large (41mb) so give it some time. http://www.tonepublications.com/tone-audio.htm
  12. ninohernes

    Very nice web site

    We all appreciate Mark's work very much. He puts a lot of time and effort into keeping this site up and running. It is truly the finest collection of vintage loudspeaker information on the internet! We are lucky to have a place where we can exchange information, and learn from both skilled professionals and enthusiasts alike. Thanks Mark for making this such a great place to hang out!!
  13. I love my AR-2's. My Grandfather bought them new in 1959. They still sound great.
  14. At 10 watts input (fairly >loud at that continuous-input level), the harmonic distortion >at 40 Hz was approximately 3% or less for each version, >excellent performance by any standard -- back then or by >current standards. > >--Tom Tyson Tell me about it!! I was looking at the AR-2 specs, and at 15 watts the produced 100.1 dB-SPL!! That is loud, like rock concert loud! When I do large scale sound reinforcemnt for rock concerts and such I have to meter my SPL output so as not to get in trouble with the law (noise laws) and I must stay below 100 dB-SPL! It is very impressive that a home audio loudspeaker can produce 100.1 dB-SPL and stay below 10% THD at 40 Hz, and 15% at 30 Hz!! I don't suggest listening this loud as it is dangerous to your hearing, but it really shows how well these woofers perform. Off topic note: If you regularly attend loud live shows (like rock or pop concerts) PLEASE wear hearing protection! Even I do. After I get the mix tidy, I wear -15 or -20 dB fitted plugs. Hearing damage is not reversable, please preserve your hearing so that you can enjoy music for many years to come.
  15. The AR-4x always amazes me. It is so small, yet it has such solid low end response. Its high end response is nothing to sneeze at either! The 4x is a great small speaker, and has many of the sonic attributes of its larger brothers.
  • Create New...