Jump to content
The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums
onplane

How would you achieve that AR sound modern components?

Recommended Posts

Edited my post about the NHT Classic 3 for those who cannot remember from my previous

posts that the plan is to add EQ as needed to get whatever is chosen as the target AR voicing.

I also mentioned adding an AR woofer that seems to have been ignored, some people need to

read with more attention.

Actually, I should just put ar_pro on ignore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Onplane

After this post I will shut up and just watch.  There are several paths to achieving your goal.  The summation of all that has been posted in this thread is whatever pleases your ears is the solution and whatever you choose will stand a better chance of pleasing your ears if you use an equalizer IMO.

Adams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a family of AR speakers. I thought it would be useful to show the differences among the several AR speakers so one can choose which AR speaker you wish to match.5ae85a081e3a1_AllAR.thumb.JPG.bddebf0e77c645989f0bbb8db901c2cc.JPG

The comparative frequency response curves were published originally  in 1970 from the September Issue of Electronics World by Hirsch-Houck Labs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is still the on topic. 

I have been looking at the specs for small speakers.  Almost all are bass reflex and many tout specs that challenge credulity. 

For instance, I came across this speaker from Human;

image.jpeg.7e7eec689159980a3be7e3b441fd8507.jpegimage.jpeg.bedc029ffdad2c4ead9a46ea27150b42.jpeg

The stated freq parameters are -/+ 2db from 38hz to 26khz which are better than the original Advent and is believable down to 100hz or so.

I have never heard any 2way 6 inch speaker that could challenge an OLA below 100hz.  This is AR 3 series territory.  What should I believe.  On paper, this Human model, can outperform an AR3a.   

Questions:

Is this possible with today’s state of the speaker art?

If possible then is it plausible for $425?

Adams

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.  Consider the volume displacement, piston area times Xmax.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the 1.5" AR midrange is much of the magic of the AR 3a and other models that used it. It covers a huge range of frequencies with incredible room filling dispersion.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is about recreating the "AR sound".

This is a post is about the evolution of “AR sound”.

The text below was taken from a very informative thread in Mods and Tweaks regarding AR4x crossover mods. The thread originated in the AR forum but was moved to mods and tweaks years ago, for obvious reasons, but this piece of that thread belongs in the AR forum. The poster was “Speaker Dave”, a former Snell designer. 

“We can only speculate while looking at the system several decades later. We do know that the AR design preference at the time was to optimize the individual driver and crossover bandpasses in a reverberent chamber. This would emphasize the power response of each driver while downplaying the axial response. When looking at the woofer and its crossover, and the tweeter and its crossover, in a reverb room, the primary difference would be the woofer's response. As any woofer rolls off considerably off axis, it would effectively have a lower crossover point in a reverb room. This would downplay the overlap issues and might suggest a larger capacitor value as optimum.

AR also preferred a balance that followed measurements of concert halls (room R converted to a response curve). This, along with optimizing woofers to be flattest in 2 pi (half space), is the reason why every early generation product seems to have a family curve that crowns at mid frequencies when the system is measured in a free field. The 2pi-4pi difference gives an uphill trend in the woofer range and the down-tilt in the treble matches the concert hall trend.

None of these are matters of "right philosophy, wrong philosophy", but are typical af a general industry-wide evolution in design approach over the years. We certainly saw the same thing within AR: the AR 9 is designed to a flatter free field response and has key features such as the acoustic blanket, that only impact the direct response.

Its also worthwile pointing out the contribution of test equipment over the years. Much of the Linkwitz/Reilly approach to crossover design, which is the basis of my discussion of "adding an order to get the phase more in line" would have been, as a practical matter, impossible in the 60's. The essential component of measuring phase response couldn't be done on a frequency sweep basis. The first tool for doing that that I recall was the B&K phase meter of about 1980. It still didn't allow removal of excess phase, the 1 or 2 meters of air path delay, so it wasn't a great help. (My rusty recollection.) It really took MLSSA, TEF and FFT methods to give easily made phase curves.

I don't think capacitor cost was a factor. But I'm sure that a more complex crossover, certainly a third order network, would have been rejected for reasons of cost. This is again typical of the times. JBL made a lot of money selling L100's with 2 caps and 2 L-Pads, nothing else. An inductor on the woofer was already an extravegence on AR's part, in a budget system.”

Regards,

David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I envision the ultimate answer as an array of sources whose combined frequency response and reverberant field are digitally modeled and controlled. Component frequency response would become irrelevant because of equalization, and component dispersion would become irrelevant because the field is generated by modulating the output of each source. Think audio holodeck.

The question would be, would you still want to recreate vintage AR sound, or knowing the original of the vintage design was to simulate the sound of a live concert, would your target be the original live performers in, say, the Boston Symphony Hall?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, genek said:

I envision the ultimate answer as an array of sources whose combined frequency response and reverberant field are digitally modeled and controlled. Component frequency response would become irrelevant because of equalization, and component dispersion would become irrelevant because the field is generated by modulating the output of each source. Think audio holodeck.

The question would be, would you still want to recreate vintage AR sound, or knowing the original of the vintage design was to simulate the sound of a live concert, would your target be the original live performers in, say, the Boston Symphony Hall?

If you are talking about a model NCC-1701 audio holodeck well, of course.  Back to this thread , what would you do while you are awaiting delivery?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I already have all the vintage AR gear I have room for here, I'd just put on some music, relax and keep my eye out for new technical bulletins from Dolby Laboratories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Teaser:  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×