AR-4x competitive with today's best?

[dynaco_dan]

Hi Tom

Thank you for your photos and your commentary.

You have had some very nice past experiences which you so kindly share with us all, thank you again.

[soundminded]

Thanks for the photos and the background Tom. I don't quite recall it that way but it's been nearly 50 years so my memory may be faulty.

[Kieran M]

Carl, Is the CT speaker shootout open to the public, like me?! Would love to listen if I can be a guest,

Thanks,

Kieran

[Carlspeak]

Carl, Is the CT speaker shootout open to the public, like me?! Would love to listen if I can be a guest,

Thanks,

Kieran

PM sent.

[speaker dave]

The methods and goals of their efforts are for the most part the result of atempts to detemine what characterizes speakers the market likes best, not what is most accurate. As a result, it is hardly surprising that their conclusions would not coincide with Consumer Reports. Toole's contention is that he persuaded Consumer Reports that their methods are flawed and they no longer test or rate loudspeakers at least in part for that reason.

Personally I consider most of Toole's work market research, not scientific research. His one contribution of real value I'm aware of is identifying how many and where to place subwoofers in a room to get the most uniform bass response. His conclusion, 4, one in each corner or 4, one at each mid wall. I have serious doubts about his other methods and conclusions.

Toole's best effort based on what he learned was the $16,000 per pair Revel Ultima Salon. It used three 8" rear ported woofers, a midrange, and a front and rear firing tweeter. Olive has developed the $22,000 Revel Ultima Salon II which is similar but using a single forward firing tweeter. I intend to hear this speaker at a dealer in the next few weeks to see how well it really works. It seems to have been a favorite of John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile Magazine who does not own a pair. He claimed he couldn't afford them.

I don't know why you continue to repeat this when it is patently untrue. The Toole tests have a number of listeners rank test subjects in a variety of performance areas: bass extension, response smoothness, etc and then the category numbers are totalled. He has been able to prove great consistancy across large numbers of test subjects and when the test groups have a large variety of loudpseaker subjects. He has proven the reapeatability of the numerical results, and SeanOlive especially has been able to show a high correllation between axial response flatness and smoothness and the ranking in the tests. The correllation between flatness and ranking alone makes it hard to think this is a preference ranking rather than an accuracy ranking. (Unless we just accept that accuracy is popular, a surprising but welcome result.)

The methodology has been well published since before his time at Harman and further testing has only expanded its credibility. I don't know of any academics with serious concerns with the methods.

Be aware that Harman is a large organization and Floyd and Sean design none of the Harman products. They do not design the Revel products, or any of the many JBL products. They are not speaker designers. Their role is to create the test facilities and suggest test methodologies and advise the engineering groups of their findings, but Kevin Voeckes at Revel or Greg Timbers (high end JBL products) can choose to follow their guidlines or not. As such any Harman product that you point out may or may not have been influenced by Toole and Olive.

My understanding of the old Consumer Reports tests was that they relied on power response curves of the subject loudspeakers. Many papers along the way have shown that power response is at best an unreliable measurement (nearly irrelevant) and specifically that flat power response will not sound good, so it is not surprising that Consumer Reports rankings and Toole/Olive ranking would be at odds.

David S.

[dynaco_dan]

The original XLM was actually a very good seller in its target market, but it was a high end "boutique" kind of cartridge. With a compliance about 2.5X that of its main rival, the Shure V15, it was suited to a narrower range of arms. I had one on my AR turntable and it was pushing the arm to its limits. Things got better when the XLM II with slightly dialed-back compliance came out.

I considered a pair of 303's before I bought my 2ax's, but while the sound was very good I was put off by the fact that the grilles were non-removable and the drivers were epoxied into the cabinets as in early KLHs. That was back in the days when most audio gear was actualy serviced from time to time and I didn't want something that could never be opened and repaired.

Hi Gene

The ADC 404's cabinet rear panel is nailed on with finishing nails, with the head still exposed far enough out for their removal. Yuch

At least if there were screws, it would have appeared a little more professional, to me.

Irregardless, they were supposedly not a bad sounding little speaker.

I have never read any reviews about them.

[Gerry S]

Regarding CR and the "audiophile community"

A long time ago, I remember reading CR's testing methods. Many decades later, I read some of Mr Toole's articles/papers. In hindsite, CR's methods are probably better than nothing for the "novice" buyer. However, it's unrealistic to expect a CR reviewed speaker product to be entirely "thorough" or "scientific". CR's engineers probably have SOME acoustic background but nowhere close to that of professionals who specialize in this hotly-debated topic of rankings and accuracy.

Reading a CR report on automobiles and then compairing their findings to magazines like Car& Driver and similiar publications often lead to dramtically different results on the SAME CAR. CR's methods are meant for the "clueless consumer", while speciallist publications have specialist engineers and technicians who probably are avid hobbyist AND highly trained/experienced in their fields of expertise.

BUT, the more expert and highly trained, the more difficult it gets to be "objective" about things that made them "specilalist" in the first place. Experiecing and listening to music is " emotionally subjective". Trying to objectively and scientifically "quantify" an emotional experience is daunting. Imagine CR attempting to "accurately" quantify what "love" is in it's numerous forms, and then publish it.

I believe that Sean Olive and Floyd Toole is trying to do just that when it comes to ranking speakers and correlating their findings with scientifically accepted methods of measuring data. CR may take months to "rank" a dozen products while "specialist" may take longer to explore ALL the "nuiances" of just ONE product.

The longer and deeper the specilaist gets involved with the product they are tring to evaluate, the more likely they will become LESS "objective". Listening to music is an emotional process for virtually everyone who enjoys it. Audio "specialist" on the other hand have made it their passion and life's work, which may or may not correlate well with their "scientific findings".

I believe objectivity (CR) and enthusiasm (the specialist) are by definition almost mutually exclusive. Yet, both camps try to do both.

[Gerry S]

ADC was located in New Milford, CT.

I googled CT and found it's part of New England. Guess their speakers (ADC 303AX) wasn't considered a "classic" here on CLP. ADC isn't listed as a "brand" here.

[Carlspeak]

Some more info on ADC can be found here.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1107761/adc-soundimage-speakers

[genek]

I googled CT and found it's part of New England. Guess their speakers (ADC 303AX) wasn't considered a "classic" here on CLP. ADC isn't listed as a "brand" here.

Brand forums are added in response to interest from members. There are plenty of other manufacturers of the "Classic New England" speaker genre that don't have a forum here. All that means is that there hasn't been much (or any) interest expressed in having one.

[dynaco_dan]

Hi Gerry and Gene

I started bugging, hinting, etc to Mark about 2004 - 5 for a Dynaco forum.

It was not in the cards back then.

After a few writeups, likely in the misc section, a Dynaco area was started eventually.

Looking back to 2006 we can see there has been more than a little interest in Dynaco.

As I had mentioned to Mark, if Gregdunn's website had a forum it would not be necessary to have one here as well.

If those interested in ADC start up some topics in, Other speakers, etc, for example, maybe there will be another section created down the road.

I would suggest looking at the Dynaco section, page 5 to see what and when it was started and where it is today.

[Pete B]

Hi Gene

The ADC 404's cabinet rear panel is nailed on with finishing nails, with the head still exposed far enough out for their removal. Yuch

At least if there were screws, it would have appeared a little more professional, to me.

Irregardless, they were supposedly not a bad sounding little speaker.

I have never read any reviews about them.

Hi Vern,

I have a copy of the 1973 "High Fidelity" "Buyers Guide" that has reviews of

the ADC 303AX, 303B, 404, and the 450A. All are well reviewed and a response

curve is provided for the 303B that is surprising smooth but lacks baffle step

compensation. If 6 dB of BSC was added it would be +/- a few dB from 80 to

7 KHz. Most speakers reviewed are nowhere near as flat. Unfortunate that the

HF response begins to roll off on axis at 7 KHz. The 303B is

significantly more efficient than most sealed systems and produces substantial

output at 80 Hz with lower distortion than the Small Advent but significantly

higher than the AR-2ax. The ADC has higher 3rd order distortion than 2nd

whereas the AR and Advent are opposite.

It is also worth noting that the KLH 33 has a very smooth/flat response in the

CBS lab measurements for a speaker of this timeframe. Curves were not

provided for all systems tested and I'm not sure if the 33 is similar to any

other KLH systems. Interesting that it is not sealed.

[soundminded]

I don't know why you continue to repeat this when it is patently untrue. The Toole tests have a number of listeners rank test subjects in a variety of performance areas: bass extension, response smoothness, etc and then the category numbers are totalled. He has been able to prove great consistancy across large numbers of test subjects and when the test groups have a large variety of loudpseaker subjects. He has proven the reapeatability of the numerical results, and SeanOlive especially has been able to show a high correllation between axial response flatness and smoothness and the ranking in the tests. The correllation between flatness and ranking alone makes it hard to think this is a preference ranking rather than an accuracy ranking. (Unless we just accept that accuracy is popular, a surprising but welcome result.) The methodology has been well published since before his time at Harman and further testing has only expanded its credibility. I don't know of any academics with serious concerns with the methods. Be aware that Harman is a large organization and Floyd and Sean design none of the Harman products. They do not design the Revel products, or any of the many JBL products. They are not speaker designers. Their role is to create the test facilities and suggest test methodologies and advise the engineering groups of their findings, but Kevin Voeckes at Revel or Greg Timbers (high end JBL products) can choose to follow their guidlines or not. As such any Harman product that you point out may or may not have been influenced by Toole and Olive. My understanding of the old Consumer Reports tests was that they relied on power response curves of the subject loudspeakers. Many papers along the way have shown that power response is at best an unreliable measurement (nearly irrelevant) and specifically that flat power response will not sound good, so it is not surprising that Consumer Reports rankings and Toole/Olive ranking would be at odds. David S.

"and the ranking in the tests."

There's the key phrase right there, the ranking. And what is that ranking about in the world of Sidney Harman/Floyd Toole, and Sean Oliver? The raning is about market preference, not about what engineered effort accurately reproduces the audible experience of live music. If most people had a preference for juke boxes, then juke boxes would have won the highest ratings.

The study of the physics and perception of sound, the engineering of systems to record and reproduce it to be as close an audible duplicate as possible, and the testing to see what comes close and what doesn't is a science. The study of what most people like best and willing to pay for to generate the highest possible profits is not a science, it's market research. Some people would like to confer the term science on it but it's only a pseudo science. Finding out that most people who buy small cars like them best if they are painted red doesn't produce a better car, just a better selling one.

[Carlspeak]

"and the ranking in the tests."

There's the key phrase right there, the ranking. And what is that ranking about in the world of Sidney Harman/Floyd Toole, and Sean Oliver? The raning is about market preference, not about what engineered effort accurately reproduces the audible experience of live music. If most people had a preference for juke boxes, then juke boxes would have won the highest ratings.

The study of the physics and perception of sound, the engineering of systems to record and reproduce it to be as close an audible duplicate as possible, and the testing to see what comes close and what doesn't is a science. The study of what most people like best and willing to pay for to generate the highest possible profits is not a science, it's market research. Some people would like to confer the term science on it but it's only a pseudo science. Finding out that most people who buy small cars like them best if they are painted red doesn't produce a better car, just a better selling one.

In the purist sense, there is some truth to what you have written. However, it begs the question: Why would Harman Int'l be willing to share the results of years of research and the undoubtedly megabucks invested, if those results could have been kept proprietary and clearly given H.I. an advantage in the marketplace?

[Gerry S]

Wish I recorded the Sean Olive meeting I attended (so I could review it thouroughly). But I truly believe that his findings and conclusions to be more than "market research". Like sociologist and psychologist, he attempts to correlate and quantify a partcular behavior/activity using established scientific methods and "tabulating" them. This is the only way I know to corellate objectively what we experience subjectively.

I consider "ranking" as an objective (scientific) way of attempting to "measure" an inherently difficult topic: pleaure (or the extreme of that; pain). As "audiophiles", we are distinctly "different" from the general music loving public. We tend to be very impassioned about our "hobby" to the point of exchanging verbal blows when someone challenges our "audio values" (and our "rationale" for sticking to them). Kinda reminds me of "religious zealotry" or "extremism".

I left the Sean Olive presentation with the firm impression that his work boils down to unbiased research. And just what is he reearching, and why ? So that in the future, the world in general may possibly have affordable audio products with universally recognized attributes that make music listening more "pleaurable". As it stands now, the "hi-fi-" industry is stagnant or vanishing.

The current economy probably plays a very large part for this decline. However, when "hi-fi" was at it's peak, "audiophiles" like us could be considered by OTHER "stereo equipment owners' (virtually all guys) as belonging to the "lunatic fringe". I believe that if and when the economy improves, Sean Olive's work will have made what WE take for "audio nirvana" to be a "mass market" experiance.

As it stands now, "hi-fi for the masses" is the I-Pod and similiar portable devices. Unless people like Sean Olive continue to find those common denominators that define "quality", we as a group will probably become dinosaurs (extinct).

BTW... the title of Sean Olive's presentation is something having to do with "young people" and what they subjectively "liked" listening to music thru an acoustically transparent curtain. Since the curtain was visually "hiding" the speakers being audtioned, test subjects DID NOT know the brand, price, physical size or appearance of the speakers they were audtioning. Audio "quality" was the ONLY parameter being "ranked".

[Pete B]

I have been enjoying your posts Gerry and you are in my opinion completely on the money in this discussion.

I really don't have much to add other than the fact that Toole and Olive's work goes way back for many years

and my impression has always been that their goals have been to advance the science and understanding of

what is perceptually important in system performance in order to provide the "best" listening experience.

Engineering to a price point requires knowing which parameters are most important to listeners, or even

audible so that budgets are allocated in the most effective way.

[genek]

In the purist sense, there is some truth to what you have written. However, it begs the question: Why would Harman Int'l be willing to share the results of years of research and the undoubtedly megabucks invested, if those results could have been kept proprietary and clearly given H.I. an advantage in the marketplace?

Probably because it's just as easy for his competitors to notice that they're losing sales to him and release "me-too" products. it's done all the time. Being regarded as an industry leader and trendsetter may be of as much or more value in sales as having a 3 month jump on your competitors in finding out what sells.

"Ranking" or panel sampling is neither inherently good or bad. As with most methods of evaluation it depends on what questions you are looking for the answers to. I can assemble a panel of tasters and ask them which soft drink sample they like the best, or I can have them compare samples to a fixed reference and ask them which sample tastes the most like the reference. There's no reason why a listening panel A/B'ing a series of reproduction products against a live source could not be a usable measure of "realism" or "accuracy" from listener POV.

[speaker dave]

I really don't have much to add other than the fact that Toole and Olive's work goes way back for many years

and my impression has always been that their goals have been to advance the science and understanding of

what is perceptually important in system performance in order to provide the "best" listening experience.

Engineering to a price point requires knowing which parameters are most important to listeners, or even

audible so that budgets are allocated in the most effective way.

Both Floyd and Sean had spent many years at the NRC before moving to Harman. The NRC facility is a Canadian resource for helping industry develop better products through the help of knowledgable academics and first rate research facilities. Floyd's life work as supported, first by the NRC then Harman, is to search for the correlation between what we can measure and what we hear. Knowing Floyd I can't imagine him moving to Harman if the position entailed him doing secret research to be used only by Harman.

The notion that Toole is defining what is popular rather than what is accurate misses the point. The speaker designer can spend effort and BOM cost trying to optimize many measurable parameters. Distortion, phase response, on axis frequency response, off axis frequency response, impedance curve, time domain response, polar curve shape and other views of speaker performance could each be concentrated on. You can't make each parameter perfect, or at least not at low cost, so the question has always been, "perceptually, what parameters are important and what can I let slide"? On frequency response alone, we have to choose to lean toward optimizing axial response or power response, but not both.

Sean Olive's work putting numerical weightings on various factors to accurately predict listening jury ranking (this is the paper that the CU ranking issue is based on), in my mind, is a breakthrough for the industry and finally answers the fundamental question.

David S.

[Pete B]

Yes, David, exactly!

[Pete B]

Steve, do you know which type of woofers were in the 4x's at the BAS meeting.

The early cross-hatched version ... or?

[soundminded]

Wish I recorded the Sean Olive meeting I attended (so I could review it thouroughly). But I truly believe that his findings and conclusions to be more than "market research". Like sociologist and psychologist, he attempts to correlate and quantify a partcular behavior/activity using established scientific methods and "tabulating" them. This is the only way I know to corellate objectively what we experience subjectively.

I consider "ranking" as an objective (scientific) way of attempting to "measure" an inherently difficult topic: pleaure (or the extreme of that; pain). As "audiophiles", we are distinctly "different" from the general music loving public. We tend to be very impassioned about our "hobby" to the point of exchanging verbal blows when someone challenges our "audio values" (and our "rationale" for sticking to them). Kinda reminds me of "religious zealotry" or "extremism".

I left the Sean Olive presentation with the firm impression that his work boils down to unbiased research. And just what is he reearching, and why ? So that in the future, the world in general may possibly have affordable audio products with universally recognized attributes that make music listening more "pleaurable". As it stands now, the "hi-fi-" industry is stagnant or vanishing.

The current economy probably plays a very large part for this decline. However, when "hi-fi" was at it's peak, "audiophiles" like us could be considered by OTHER "stereo equipment owners' (virtually all guys) as belonging to the "lunatic fringe". I believe that if and when the economy improves, Sean Olive's work will have made what WE take for "audio nirvana" to be a "mass market" experiance.

As it stands now, "hi-fi for the masses" is the I-Pod and similiar portable devices. Unless people like Sean Olive continue to find those common denominators that define "quality", we as a group will probably become dinosaurs (extinct).

BTW... the title of Sean Olive's presentation is something having to do with "young people" and what they subjectively "liked" listening to music thru an acoustically transparent curtain. Since the curtain was visually "hiding" the speakers being audtioned, test subjects DID NOT know the brand, price, physical size or appearance of the speakers they were audtioning. Audio "quality" was the ONLY parameter being "ranked".

"As it stands now, the "hi-fi-" industry is stagnant or vanishing."

It deserves to vanish. It's long overdue. The last valuable innovative idea it had was the digital compact disc over 30 years ago.

Which beverage tastes most like Chateau Petrus? According to the world's leading wine taster a good candidate is a wine called Dominus made in Napanook California. Which beverage do you like best? Easy, cold fresh squeezed orange juice! Tastes nothing like Petrus or Dominus.

I don't normally advertise myself but I'm going to make an exception. As the one time chief electrical engineer of the largest research consortium in the world I know junk science when I see it, I know horse manure when I smell it. Someone comparing speakers with a crane swapping one speaker for another lifting them by eye-hooks so that they are in the same spot in a room cutting edge research? Give me a break! And during these last 30 years that is all this industry has produced. What's worse the price of its insanity keeps escalating as the products become increasingly ludicrous. An entry level high end audio system probably starts around $50,000 today. It turns a living room into what looks more like an electronics laboratory. To get whatever benefit it advertises you have to sit where "X" marks the spot, practically put you head in a vise. And for what, to hear a recording of Taylor Swift's sing her ditties? Earbuds and an i-pod are overkill for that. Symphony orchestras and acoustic architects have nothing to lose sleep over worrying that they're about to be replaced anytime soon.

I listened to Floyd Toole's hour and a half interview I referenced elsewhere several times through very carefully. He has some inkling of the problem of high fidelity sound. He is also the first to admit he doesn't know how to solve it. Where his arrogance comes in is when he says noboby else can either. Not only isn't he mentally up to the challenge by a long shot, he and his successor Olive are among the best this now pathetic industry has to offer. AFAIK, nobody with the smarts to make any headway is working in this line of research. In today's world the problem simply isn't interesting or important enough to warrant a serious effort by anyone truly capable of tackling it. There's certainly been no want of money for it in the past if you knew the right people. The publicized best unconventional efforts are interesting but entirely ineffective. It's the reason it's only a hobby for me, I had better things to do with my life.

I also listened carefully to the magazine editor's interview several times and other interviews and panel discussions he's participated in that can be accessed over the internet. IMO he's a lab tech who overachieved with a hobbyist magazine that reaches a niche hobbyist market. From his interviews I've concluded that he is utterly clueless.

[Gerry S]

Man, soundminded. That was pretty harsh about Toole and Olive's work. I don't have the credentials, recognition or skill set to either get funding, or come up with a" solution" either. I've contended elsewhere that "anybody can be a critic". But can you do better ?

I personally would like "hi-fi" resurrected. Not for financial gain or fame. Merely because today's younger generation (our kids and grandkids) don't know what their missing. Competant or not (I'm not qualfied to decide this), Sean Olive at least attempts to understand what people like, and why.

You certainly seem to be well educated and profesionally accomplished. You also aparently know a lot about audio and loudspeakers, Although I am a "hobbiet" like you, I HAVE worked for a major loudspeaker company and voiced products "for the masses". Admittedly, I "lucked-out" in getting this job, because the founder took a hugh chance and personally "mentored" me. Why ? It was my "passion" and willing to anything to get my foot in the door.

So, I started out by lifting speaker cabinets onto the production line. Did this for two weeks until I couldn't physically do it anymore. Some of the enginners who saw me bought be in as a technician before I decided to quit. So began my audio career.

I'll never be famous or recognized for the work I did there...barely a blip (a very microscopic one) in the total audio sheme of things.The most advanced degree i got was an associate's in EE, and I had to struggle to get even that. So when it comes to getting funding to sustain a dying industry, I can't do it. Despite my experience and passion, they (the money people) will say "Gerry who"? Asssuming unlimited funding is available, what methods would YOU employ to ressurrect hi-fi like the "good old days" ?

One last thing. I happen to like "pop music". I grew up as a "inner city " kid and wasn't priviledged enough to be exposed to the "fine arts" early on. Grew up on the Beatles and music of the Woodstock era, then widened my interest into the "classics".

So, unlike some (many/most ?) members here, I'm not very "polished" or "refined" when it comes to technical knowledge. The same holds true for my limited appreciation of the aesthetic "naturalness" of live orchestral concert performances as a "reference". Sometimes, I take great umbrage when the "purist" who insist that "live classsical concerts" is the ONLY "valid" reference when evaluating loudspeakers. For me (and probably the majority of "music lovers"), pop/rock IS "legitimate".

I often think the decline of audio reproduction as a hobby is due in part of this "elitist attitude" of the "purist".

Yeah, I know my spelling and writing stinks. But it's adequate for the purposes of expressing my opinions and views. Not very "polished" compaired to others here, but still "valid" as anyone's.

To be honest, I'm very reluctant to blog here sometimes.. way out of my league !!!!!!

[soundminded]

Gerry, I've PM'd you with a response. Where I come from we have a saying, money talks, bull$*&+ walks. Substitute knowledge for money and you have what I think of Mr. Toole and Mr. Olive.

[dynaco_dan]

Hi Gerry

Please continue to chat here.

I welcome your input and enjoy your writings..

[RoyC]

C'mon, Soundminded, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel!

As I read this discussion, and remember the less civil previous versions in the now defunct Kitchen, I can't help but think they are completely irrelevant to all but the very few of us who still have an interest in "retro" audio. It is like debating the relative merits and differences of 30 year old sports cars. I agree with Soundminded, the basics haven't changed enough to matter very much.

The world represented in this forum is an ever diminishing niche, and will never be resurrected. How many people really care if 2 boxes of speaker parts placed in an infinite number of listening settings can reproduce music better than another pair of boxes? How relevant are old studies and research oriented around this concept?

I love playing with and restoring old equipment, and appreciate the work of those who have attempted to define and improve the reproduction of sound, but I don't recall a 2-big-box-in-a-room product resulting from "studies" that changed the grand scheme of things. Perhaps we should consider what research Bose may have conducted to successfully market the concept of modules, and sound reflectivity. Imo, this success is what really put the last nail in the coffin of the 2 speaker/hifi/stereo concept. Today, research probably has as much (or more) to do with the delivery of sound, than the nuances of the "quality" of sound. The "quality" is apparently now "good enough" for 99+% of humanity. :-) It is highly doubtful the current generation of mp3/earbud users are concerned about any of this.

To stay somewhat on topic....I believe the 4x is/was a moving target. There were at least 5 different woofer changes, 3 crossovers, and experimentation with aperiodic loading (controlled air leakage) along the way. I have absolutely no doubt there were response variations between the iterations. There were 400,000+/- of the little beasties manufactured over nearly a decade.

Roy