Aadams

Members
  • Content count

    92
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Aadams

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  1. I think you are correct and what a can of worms this leads to. Now we are getting into the elusive and subjective "you are there" experience which I personally only ever sense with certain brands and era classical recordings in a specific room with low ambient noise and a system with sufficient dynamic and frequency range. If you don't listen to large scale classical I am not sure the spaciousness factor matters that much. Same with headphones which really help defeat the ambient noise problem but even then a crap recording is still crap. For non classical music OTOH I don't really care about spaciousness or soundstage or whatever, it just has to have a message I like. Again highly subjective.
  2. I doesn't matter why, I will just skip the verbiage and say for me, your statement is exactly correct. Adams
  3. Which is better is up to you. Do you like spaciousness or intimate detail sound? —Tom Tyson Not sure if your question was rhetorical but on the chance you are polling me, I prefer spaciousness. Adams
  4. What I get from this is, if one is dealing with well designed speakers then what sounds best becomes very personal. After many years I have found a good groove with AR 12 inchers. I could duplicate the sound I like with other equipment but what a pain and with so little time left.
  5. This was the original topic of the thread. I want to keep this discussion to the importance of mid-dispersion for forward-facing single-driver-per-band designs, and whether there is truly an audible/meaningful difference between a 1 ½-inch dome and a 4- or 5-inch cone when the listener is sitting in a normal position (less than 10 or 15 degrees off axis from the left and right speakers of a stereo pair). What you have been saying is enjoyable and informative but what is the answer to the original question or has it been answered? Adams
  6. This made me laugh. I know this guy. He writes for an audiophile publication.
  7. ...............But the dome midrange enjoyed a far briefer time in the spotlight. There are still a few dome mids here and there from random companies, but the mainstream, right-down-the-middle-of-the-road dome mid is pretty much gone. The reason is: today most speakers for home use appear to be two way designs or variations using identical drivers in ported enclosures. A 5 or 6 inch cone driver with a tweeter will suit the needs of the average listener who doesn't care about sounds below 85z. Apparently a midrange dome can't cover the same spectrum in a two way configuration. As to which is better, dome or cone, for my type of listening, domes are better.
  8. I want to keep this discussion to the importance of mid-dispersion for forward-facing single-driver-per-band designs, and whether there is truly an audible/meaningful difference between a 1 ½-inch dome and a 4- or 5-inch cone when the listener is sitting in a normal position (less than 10 or 15 degrees off axis from the left and right speakers of a stereo pair). I am just a long time hobbyist with subjective opinions keeping in mind the original question and constraints. In my experience, for sweet spot listening there is probably no practical difference. The 58s has a dome midrange vs 58b cone midrange with a similar low crossover point, maybe there is comparative data on those. AR 5 vs AR2ax fits the midrange physical requirement but the 2ax woofer carries all of the LMR load and for that reason IMO the AR5 always sounds better at my house. Using an equalizer I have made full range Advents and Full range EPIs sound very close to AR 3a in direct AB test but I prefer the sound of the AR. I have made Time Windows sound shockingly similar to 3as with all of their spaciousness but I used a subwoofer and the DCM has two cone midranges in the Allison 1 style. Bottom line for me is it makes no difference. I love AR 12 inchers. They are relatively inexpensive, they are easy to dial into my listening preferences and these days I listen to multiple AR 12 inch systems simultaneously in the same room so the difference between mid dome and mid cone is now lost for me.
  9. Understood. I am just waiting for the answer to the question, " are they film or electrolytic?"
  10. Proposal to site Admin: When the final results are in on the red end caps this discussion should be considered for pinning at the top of the board. It will provide excellent guidance for all generations of AR. Aadams
  11. Vincenzo Foobar has a 31 band 1/3 octave equalizer, which should be more than adequate. The configuration of the AR7 in the test was NOT stacked rather angled pairs like two of the 3 faces of an LST. Now all you need is a powered bass module as suggested earlier. Adams
  12. I am not trying to influence opinions with this post but I do have 2 questions. If today's caps had been available when the AR9 was designed which caps would, in your opinion, have been specified by the designers? Also, which of todays caps most closely conform to what was originally specified? Adams
  13. Vincenzo This is from a thread started by SteveF in 2012 "This was reported in Stereo Review magazine-- Many years back (1973 or so), a well-respected audio designer took 2 pairs of AR-7's (2 spkrs per channel) and angled them so as to closely approximate the radiation pattern of the LST. He then equalized the 7's so their far-field response was as close to the LST's as he could get it (within their LF frequency limit). He then played material that didn't have significant bass below 50-60 Hz and A-B'd the LSTs against the paired 7's. They were almost indistinguishable, leading this individual to conclude that FR and spectral balance is the primary determinant of a speaker's identifiable sound quality. This experiment presents a very compelling case for that viewpoint. Aadams' post lends independent credibility to that stance. Lot's of us like to think that other, more "subtle" and "esoteric" traits are what make speakers sound radically different from each other, but it may just be that good 'ol FR is the BIG ONE. Not the only one, but the big one." You might need a 10 band equalizer and a sub-woofer but you are almost halfway to a handy man LST. Steve F.
  14. Regarding AR5 poor bass. Forgot to mention your woofers may be connected out of phase. +/- internal wiring is connected opposite on one woofer compared to the other or you may have your rear terminal connections crossed on one cabinet.
  15. All things being equal AR5 will have better bass than the AR6 plus it has the sonic characteristics of a 3a. If you are certain that the 6 has more bass than the 5 I would check the woofer seal since the woofer is almost certain to have been removed for refoam. While looking inside if you discover your caps are Compulytics my advice would be to not worry about caps unless you truly have reason to believe they are defective.