AR-4x competitive with today's best?

[genek]

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.

But doesn't that effectively validate Toole's contention? Whether there isn't anybody smart enough to do it, or there is somebody smart enough but that person has better things to do (like being able to eat and have a roof over your head), the result is the same.

[soundminded]

"But doesn't that effectively validate Toole's contention?"

No. Not any more than asserting that the world isn't round is validated because nobody has traveled around it yet. All it means is that the problem hasn't been solved yet. He doesn't know if it can or can't be, all he knows is that he can't do it himself. If he thinks nobody else can, then he is saying in effect that he's as smart as anyone and if he can't do it, nobody else can either. I say it can be solved, but not by the way it's being done. Hitting your head against the same brick wall again and again and finding it doesn't budge is reason enough to stop, stand back and either try something else or step aside. Einstein said an idiot is someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. The present ideas have been exhausted, their full potential exploited to the nth degree. If there's going to be progress, it will come from a different approach entirely. That's not likely from companies or people who have a vested interest in grabbing as much of the existing dwindling market for products that have been fully matured.

[genek]

Certain inappriopriate posts in this discussion have been moved to the Kitchen forum.

Post about the topic, not about each other.

[Carlspeak]

Does the move of 'certain posts' to the kitchen indicate the kitchen is once again OPEN?

[RoyC]

Certain inappriopriate posts in this discussion have been moved to the Kitchen forum.

Oops, so much for my "now defunct Kitchen" comment...

Roy

[genek]

The Kitchen is now a read-only graveyard. You can view inappapropriate posts that have been banished there, but you can't reply to them.

[speaker dave]

"But doesn't that effectively validate Toole's contention?"

No. Not any more than asserting that the world isn't round is validated because nobody has traveled around it yet. All it means is that the problem hasn't been solved yet. He doesn't know if it can or can't be, all he knows is that he can't do it himself. If he thinks nobody else can, then he is saying in effect that he's as smart as anyone and if he can't do it, nobody else can either. I say it can be solved, but not by the way it's being done. Hitting your head against the same brick wall again and again and finding it doesn't budge is reason enough to stop, stand back and either try something else or step aside. Einstein said an idiot is someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. The present ideas have been exhausted, their full potential exploited to the nth degree. If there's going to be progress, it will come from a different approach entirely. That's not likely from companies or people who have a vested interest in grabbing as much of the existing dwindling market for products that have been fully matured.

I usually jump in and defend the industry thats given me a living for thirty years but since the above sad rant is no different than the many previous times I don't want to get equally repetitive in my reply. For those that are interested in what really has been discovered in the last few decades they should look up the following paper. It is also well described in Toole's book. Olive was able to take a large group of speakers, have a group of listeners rank order them in a blind listening test and then analyze the measurable attributes that correlated with their rankings.

[1] Sean E. Olive, "A Multiple Regression Model for Predicting Loudspeaker Preferences using Objective Measurements: Part 1 -Listening Test Results," presented at the 116th AES Convention, May 2004.

Based on this he could take any new speaker samples and accurately predict what their subjective evaluation scores would be purely based on their measurements. This is important stuff and shows that we can define what is important in speaker design and how to maximise subjective sound quality.

It may be true that there isn't a strong market for traditional HiFi gear, but quality sound reproduction has not gone away. I find quaity headphones and good portable MP3 players (at reasonable bit rates) an exciting market. Sound systems in cinemas, if well alligned, have greater capability than ever before, car stereo seems to be a thriving market, TVs need speakers etc.

Understanding the basis of subjective impression is the crucial element to guiding the designer towards developing the best product possible for any price and application.

David

p.s. Bring back the kitchen!

[genek]

Understanding the basis of subjective impression is the crucial element to guiding the designer towards developing the best product possible for any price and application.

David

p.s. Bring back the kitchen!

It seems to me that this is the whole foundation of SM's view, that today's speakers are being designed to suit subjective listener preferences and not any standard of realistically reproducing real-world sounds.

Direct any requests regarding the Kitchen to Mark.

[Carlspeak]

I believe today's HIFI market is analogous to the automobile market.

Most car drivers just want economy and convenience of getting from one place to another. That is analogous to most music listeners who are happy to listen to music thru their ear buds while texting or tweeting or bluetoothing or whatever.

There is a very small segment of the automobile market that caters to those who love to drive VERY nice, high performance cars and will spend the money to do just that. The perfect car has yet to be developed and each year new, 'improved' models are introduced and bought by those 'car lovers'. Sound familiar?

Analogous to that are the music LOVERS who yearn for the emotinal connection with the music derived from accurately reproduced recordings played thru high end audio systems. The perfect audio reproduction system has yet to be developed/invented as soundminded has pointed out numerous times and yet, new audio gear is constantly being introduced with claims of improved performance. Sound familiar?

.... and the beat goes on.....

Enjoy the music, because, IT"S ALL ABOUT THE MUSIC!

p.s. bring back the kitchen!

[speaker dave]

It seems to me that this is the whole foundation of SM's view, that today's speakers are being designed to suit subjective listener preferences and not any standard of realistically reproducing real-world sounds.

In the end the Toole/Olive tests are about preference but lets not confuse that with picking the "boom and tizz" system over one with flatter response. Participants are asked to rate each system on spectral balance, bass extension, lack of coloration, image width, spaciousness, etc. The results of their testing is not that people like their fine wine with 3 teaspoons of sugar added. People preferred axial response smoothness and flatness and a power response free from obvious resonances. People preferred wide bandwidth. Basic stuff, except power response curve shape, phase response, extraordinarily low distortion and other commonly assumed priorities were not found to be relevant.

To be honest, as a designer with a predeliction for landing in struggling companies, if someone could convince me that a particular colored response curve was the secret to sales sucess, I would probably be on board. My experience is that while many might like some non flat curve, there is no aberant response that is universally liked. The safest bet in the market is actually a fairly accurate response.

David

[Gerry S]

My experience is that while many might like some non flat curve, there is no aberant response that is universally liked. The safest bet in the market is actually a fairly accurate response.

David

I have to agree. There are so many intermediate chains from the master recording to what finally arrives at your ears. Bet you that if 50 stations of any kind played an identical copy of a recording simultainiously (assume all stations are time-synced), each stations "version" would sound "different" somehow. I would think that an "accurate" speaker would be the one that reveals differences among the stations easily without the speaker adding further coloration of it's own.

With video, it's pretty easy to spot video calibration differences among broadcasters when they all simultaiously send a live important event (like "the state of the union" broadcast). Assuming your tv is of reasonable quality, one can see some relatively "minor" differences from channel to channel that's tolerated by viewers. If all stations adhered to strict standards, you would see no difference from channel to channel. If one station decided to change their calibration dramitically to give more impact, a poorly calibrated tv set at the reception end would further add to any deviations added by the broadcasters.The end result would be a picture that may be unwatchable.

With audio,there is the same kind of "tweaking" among the various stages along the broadcast path. But it's a lot harder to know what's "correct" because the listener can't have a dependable reference to compare it to. How the heck would I know what so-and-so REALLY sounds like if I never met him/her in person?

[RoyC]

It may be true that there isn't a strong market for traditional HiFi gear, but quality sound reproduction has not gone away. I find quaity headphones and good portable MP3 players (at reasonable bit rates) an exciting market. Sound systems in cinemas, if well alligned, have greater capability than ever before, car stereo seems to be a thriving market, TVs need speakers etc

David

Agreed, David...I would also add the business of installing built-in audio/video systems in new and existing homes as an interesting aspect of modern audio. I know of at least two successful businesses of this type in my area. I bet many of these customers are the ones who would have been able to afford AR-1's and AR-3's back in the day. (It would be interesting to know what guidlines are being used in these installations.) The trend and effort to make modern sound sources invisible are very real. The primary reason some types of restored retro-gear are popular right now is visual appeal. This is why nicely restored AR-3a's and polished Pioneer receivers are more acceptable outside of man-caves than are monolithic towers and big black stacks of equipment.

I'm sure most, or all, of the participants and readers of this forum became interested in audio equipment as a result of the love of music. The interest in the equipment used to play back recorded music took on a life its own, and here we are. The diversity and availablity of the equipment was/is part of the fun. The truth is, I've enjoyed the music equally played through most of the systems and speakers I have owned over the years...in spite of having their own "personalities".

Due to the variable nature of recorded music, I also wonder about the ability to discern whether a recording is being reproduced "accurately" in a typical residential setting. The fact that the AR-4x compares favorably with modern speakers probably has as much to do with this issue as anything else.

Roy

[Gerry S]

Agreed, David...I would also add the business of installing built-in audio/video systems in new and existing homes as an interesting aspect of modern audio. I know of at least two successful businesses of this type in my area. I bet many of these customers are the ones who would have been able to afford AR-1's and AR-3's back in the day. (It would be interesting to know what guidlines are being used in these installations.) The trend and effort to make modern sound sources invisible are very real. The primary reason some types of restored retro-gear are popular right now is visual appeal. This is why nicely restored AR-3a's and polished Pioneer receivers are more acceptable outside of man-caves than are monolithic towers and big black stacks of equipment.

I'm sure most, or all, of the participants and readers of this forum became interested in audio equipment as a result of the love of music. The interest in the equipment used to play back recorded music took on a life its own, and here we are. The diversity and availablity of the equipment was/is part of the fun. The truth is, I've enjoyed the music equally played through most of the systems and speakers I have owned over the years...in spite of having their own "personalities".

Due to the variable nature of recorded music, I also wonder about the ability to discern whether a recording is being reproduced "accurately" in a typical residential setting. The fact that the AR-4x compares favorably with modern speakers probably has as much to do with this issue as anything else.

Roy

Same where I live. High end shops doing custom in-wall installations are doing well; but costing in the $10-$20 k range for "entry level" installs . Majority of these are home-theater driven.

To stay on topic, the AR 4x (in all it's iterations) would probably suit most of my listening needs today. I don't NEED the several octaves the larger systems can reproduce, or the higher SPL's that come with it.

When I'm listening to music for the sake of musical enjoyment, I do it in my car. Concentrating on driving safely , don't have the luxuary of dwelling on the nuances of "fidelity".

And I agree about audio as a hobby taking on a life of it's own. Over time, the pursuit of "accuracy" became THE reason for bying more and "better" equipment. Which left little time for me to actually listen to the music. My equipment expenditure over my lifetime probably exceeds my music library cost by several orders of magnitude. I really regret that now. But it's not too late to change that.

I have a childhood friend whose vast musical library would be the envy of just about anyone. To me, he represents what a TRUE music lover is. The equipment he owns today was what I sold him in the 70's (AR3a's , Marantz 22270 reciever). I should befriend him again just so I can "borrow" the records I didn't buy myself because I spent all my money on equipment..LOL.

For many "audiophiles", there is a VERY "fine line" between "passion" and "obsession". If i had to do it all over again, any single AR "vintage" product would sound very decent to me today. I would perhaps use an equalizer and a modest reciever and be content at that.

It IS "all about the music" after-all. Audiophiles tend to forget that sometimes.

[Steve F]

Pete B--

This was a smooth-coned woofer version. As I said, based on the s/n (291k) compared to my Dad's (365k purchaed in July 1969), I estimate these as built in 1968, a few years after the very early 4x's.

Roy C--

As to the 4x being a "moving target," I understand what you're saying, but as I opined earlier, I'm fairly certain that the actual, tangible FR differences remained very small and tonal goal of the 4x was essentially the same throughout its market/production life. In other words, I think an early 4x and a later 4x would probably be a pretty darned good stereo pair, even if the woofer chokes or tweeter cap or woofer cone were ever-so-slightly modified through the years. As far as I know (I could be wrong, of course), I think the tweeter itself stayed pretty much exactly the same throughout. "Moving"? Maybe, but very slowly, and easy to hit.

Steve F.

[soundminded]

It seems to me that this is the whole foundation of SM's view, that today's speakers are being designed to suit subjective listener preferences and not any standard of realistically reproducing real-world sounds.

Direct any requests regarding the Kitchen to Mark.

I posted earlier that I'd attended an LvR demo in 1967 in which AR4x along with AR3 produced sounds that were compared directly with a Nickelodeon and that they had a striking and surprising (to me) similarity. AR4x was not Villchur's most expensive product, it was his least expensive product. That surviving specimens of it are still viable as more than museum pieces but used to listen to music 45 years later leads me to conclude that this is not because they were far ahead of their time but because the industry hasn't come very far. This cannot be said for any comparable category of products I can think of, not for TV sets, cameras, hand held calculators, wristwatches, telephones, video cameras and recorders, not any of them. The trend has always been to produce increasingly more capable products that eclipse their predecessors at increasingly lower prices. But not here. What improvements have been made can be largely chalked up to improved materials, not to conceptual advances. In fact the concept of a high quality electronic sound reproducing system today is exactly as it was in 1967, about the only difference being the substitution/additon of digital music sources like CD players. Also the prices have skyrocketed. In 1967 the price of the most expensive sound systems were comparable to the cost of a new domestic luxury car, say a Caddillac or Lincoln. Today it's comparable to the cost of a very large and expensive house. Why? Well here's one example;

http://www.avshowroo...oustics_Co.html

"Once you've lived with a crane in your listening room it's hard to go back."

So much money and effort, so little results!

BTW, Toole/Olive wrote considerably about AR's LvR demos and dismissed them as worthless advertising gimmicks. You can draw your own conclusion about whether or not he's right.

http://www.whatsbest...sts-Do-Not-Work

Perhaps others can take these people and what they do seriously. I just can't.

[Carlspeak]

IMO, the operative word/s (or expression, as it were) in the LVR debate is YMMV.

There are those uber-audiophiles in the minutest of minorities who yearn for the perfect 'you are there/they are here' experience in their listening room. They will never be satisfied until that experience has occured.

Then, there are those in a much larger, albeit still small proportion of the music buying public, who are content with the illusion current (60 yr. old) technology provides. Whether it's a restored vintage 4x or a modern 6 figure loudspeaker system.

The debates will go on precisely because of our varying listening tastes. That's one of the great attributes of this hobby.

I think this thread has run its course.

[RoyC]

Pete B--

This was a smooth-coned woofer version. As I said, based on the s/n (291k) compared to my Dad's (365k purchaed in July 1969), I estimate these as built in 1968, a few years after the very early 4x's.

Roy C--

As to the 4x being a "moving target," I understand what you're saying, but as I opined earlier, I'm fairly certain that the actual, tangible FR differences remained very small and tonal goal of the 4x was essentially the same throughout its market/production life. In other words, I think an early 4x and a later 4x would probably be a pretty darned good stereo pair, even if the woofer chokes or tweeter cap or woofer cone were ever-so-slightly modified through the years. As far as I know (I could be wrong, of course), I think the tweeter itself stayed pretty much exactly the same throughout. "Moving"? Maybe, but very slowly, and easy to hit.

Steve F.

Hi Steve,

The general character of the 4x seems to have remained consistent. I believe you are correct...I have never seen a different 4x tweeter.

I just checked the data John O'Hanlon and I collected on (46) AR-4x's, and found the 300,xxx serial numbers did not start until just after 1970. Are you sure about 365,xxx having been purchased in 1968? That is very inconsistent with our information. We have 19 documented with numbers over 300,xxx manufactured after 1970, and none before that date. Serial # 364,915 was manufactured around February of 1971 according to John's chart, and had foam surrounds. I also noticed the last entry (so far) is 403,633, so there were more than 400,000 manufactured.

Roy

[genek]

My LvR demo was the Carnegie Hall event. I can't really speak to my listening impressions at the time because I was in the seventh grade and not a terribly sophisticated listener, but my uncles who took me along with them seemed very impressed, as did most of the other people there, and years later I ended up buying AR speakers. Maybe Edgar Villchur was a pioneer of subliminal suggestion as well.

Modern products have become "more capable," but the emphasis does not seem to be on sound but on user interface. Remote controls, automatic functions, decoding movie sound, etc.

The listening experience goal seems to me to be as much "you are there" as it ever was, but today the "there" is a movie theater and not a concert hall (or an outdoor arena, since the "stadium" settings on surround-sound systems don't seem any more realistic than the "concert hall" settings).

Listener preference, whether for a symphony hall, a rock concert or a movie theater, has always ruled commercial products. It's just that listener preference has changed over the years and has passed most of us here by.

[RoyC]

The listening experience goal seems to me to be as much "you are there" as it ever was, but today the "there" is a movie theater and not a concert hall (or an outdoor arena, since the "stadium" settings on surround-sound systems don't seem any more realistic than the "concert hall" settings).

True...I have to admit to being a huge Imax fan.

As for concerts, I'm not sure there are any venues, small or large, "acoustic" or otherwise, that do not use some kind of sound reinforcement these days. Once again, how can "accurate" or "real" be defined when the sound is being channeled through an electrical amplification system?

Roy

[soundminded]

My LvR demo was the Carnegie Hall event. I can't really speak to my listening impressions at the time because I was in the seventh grade and not a terribly sophisticated listener, but my uncles who took me along with them seemed very impressed, as did most of the other people there, and years later I ended up buying AR speakers. Maybe Edgar Villchur was a pioneer of subliminal suggestion as well.

Modern products have become "more capable," but the emphasis does not seem to be on sound but on user interface. Remote controls, automatic functions, decoding movie sound, etc.

The listening experience goal seems to me to be as much "you are there" as it ever was, but today the "there" is a movie theater and not a concert hall (or an outdoor arena, since the "stadium" settings on surround-sound systems don't seem any more realistic than the "concert hall" settings).

Listener preference, whether for a symphony hall, a rock concert or a movie theater, has always ruled commercial products. It's just that listener preference has changed over the years and has passed most of us here by.

Until the late 1970s to early 1980s there was a clear goal for this industry. High fidelity sound systems were supposed to reproduce the aural experience of hearing live acoustic music. That the equipment could be used or adapted to other purposes while true was not relevant. Acoustic Research under Villchur, Kloss, Allison clearly had that in mind. But in the 1970s it was realized that the two channel model could not reproduce the sound resulting from the acoustics of venue which were crucial to the live experience. This was the goal of stereo, of Bose 901, and of Quadraphonic sound, the industry's response to 901. The commercial failure IMO wasn't due to the multiplicity of systems, it was due to technical failure, every one of them failed to live up to its promise. And so the industry gave up and reverted to what it knew how to do, its prior successful formula two channel stereo. At about this time something else happened. Governments began cutting back funding for music appreciation, art, and other "cultural" courses in public schools. Face reality, we live in a nation if not a world of musical ignoramuses. People no longer knew what they were missing out on and therefore didn't care. As a result, there were no longer any benchmarks the industry had to work towards. Although the original problem had beaten it, it didn't matter, it could still turn out endless products to a new paradigm it defined itself (the one I unreservedly reject.) The flip side is that i-pods and earbuds became entirely acceptable as equipment for playing musical recordings for most people. If more sound or a shared experience was needed, home theater was also entirely acceptable for most. That's the situation now as I see it and why this industry is in decline.

I hope performance venues like Boston Symphony Hall don't use sound reinforcement systems. That would make it impossible to hear unadulterated live music anymore. Why bother to go to a live concert at all if what you are going to hear at least in part is no better than what you could hear at home from a recording or radio broadcast? It is far more difficult and expensive to build a successful concert hall than a movie theater. Success for a move theater is practically guaranteed every time, there are rarely if ever disappointments. You'd think considering how much money is involved to build a concert hall venue, probably of the order of 100 million dollars today, how much time and effort it takes, how much public anticipation there is in the outcome, that people entrusted with that much money would copy brick for brick the best halls that already exist. Not so, every architect, every management, every acoustician wants to make a unique statement. As a result we get failed concert halls like Avery Fisher Hall all the time. What a sad legacy to leave to people of the future, the generation that destroyed music and left i-pods, earbuds, and audiophile paraphernalia in its place.

[Steve F]

I just checked the data John O'Hanlon and I collected on (46) AR-4x's, and found the 300,xxx serial numbers did not start until just after 1970. Are you sure about 365,xxx having been purchased in 1968? That is very inconsistent with our information. We have 19 documented with numbers over 300,xxx manufactured after 1970, and none before that date. Serial # 364,915 was manufactured around February of 1971 according to John's chart, and had foam surrounds. I also noticed the last entry (so far) is 403,633, so there were more than 400,000 manufactured.

Roy,

I have no explanation for this, except for a possibly faulty memory on my part. I remember lots of small numerical details of seemingly irrelevant things from times long past (level max speed of P-51D 437 mph, Frazier's weight for first Ali fight 205 1/2 lbs, Micky Lolich's W-L record in 1971 25-14 [was 25-11, lost last three], all the AR specs), and on and on. I remember the date my Dad bought them--July 15, 1969. I was 15. I am 99% sure of the s/n as being 365k, because we both remarked on it with pride and amazement that AR had sold so many, and we remember it as almost "a half million."

Could I be off by 100K? Was the number 265k? I suppose it's possible, but that would run counter to a number that has stayed with me for 40+ years, like many others. After all, Frazier did weigh 205 1/2 for the first Ali fight, not 215.

But I defer to your and John O's research.

Steve F.

[RoyC]

After all, Frazier did weigh 205 1/2 for the first Ali fight, not 215.

Well, you have a better memory than I do! I'm using a cheat sheet.

We estimated the dates from stamps on the drivers. We do have a #235,288 in March of 1969, so if your first digit is off by 1, it could "fit" the chart.

According to Tom Tyson, the AR-5, which was introduced in 1969, was the first AR model to use a foam surround woofer...and the 3a foam surround woofer didn't show up until sometime in 1970. It would follow that the 4x foam was introduced shortly thereafter.

I'll add your entry to the list with 2 dates and a question mark. Any info is always appreciated. Thanks, Steve!

Roy

[speaker dave]

I don't really buy the "accuracy died when classical music went out of favor" arguement. For one thing, I don't know if classical music is that much less popular. Orchestras have a hard time staying afloat but it is their very high costs that hurt them. My sister-in-law left fundraising for the Cleveland Orchetra after they went on strike for more pay in the middleof one of their financially most difficult years in a long time (not due to poor attendance but a drying up of the major donors due to the recession).

I, like most of my HiFi buddies listen to a wide variety of music from jazz to classical to Blues to classic (geezer!) rock and all of them benefit from better reproduction gear. A colored speaker adds unwanted personality to everything fed through it. Who wants Paul Desmond with added midrange honk? Or Dire Straits with harsh treble? Well recorded music of any genre will have natural elements as well as the electronic elements. Even the artificial elements will reveal speaker coloration. Pink noise, a totally artificial construct, is brutally revealing of speaker aberrations.

Sure there is plenty of crappy pop music out there horribly recorded and not especially deserving of perfect reproduction. There is a special circle of hell reserved for whoever developed Autotune. But beyond that, good repoduction wil benefit music of all types. To argue that speaker evolution, along with good music, died in the 70's because AR products changed directions about that time is to be stuck in the past, in denial about the interesting and continuos evolution that continues to this day.

David

[genek]

I hope performance venues like Boston Symphony Hall don't use sound reinforcement systems. That would make it impossible to hear unadulterated live music anymore.

That depends on what constitutes a "sound reinforcement system" or "unadulterated." How many times have they reworked Avery Fisher Hall in NYC to change the way it sounds?

[Gerry S]

Speaker Dave....."I, like most of my HiFi buddies listen to a wide variety of music from jazz to classical to Blues to classic (geezer!) rock and all of them benefit from better reproduction gear. A colored speaker adds unwanted personality to everything fed through it. Who wants Paul Desmond with added midrange honk? Or Dire Straits with harsh treble? Well recorded music of any genre will have natural elements as well as the electronic elements. Even the artificial elements will reveal speaker coloration. Pink noise, a totally artificial construct, is brutally revealing of speaker aberrations."

"There is a special circle of hell reserved for whoever developed Autotune."

Glad I'm not the only one with "varied musical taste". And I totally agree about "pink noise" as brutally revealing. As for Autotune, hell is not harsh enough IMO .

Roy C...."As for concerts, I'm not sure there are any venues, small or large, "acoustic" or otherwise, that do not use some kind of sound reinforcement these days. Once again, how can "accurate" or "real" be defined when the sound is being channeled through an electrical amplification system?"

Very true (at least in the Boston area). Perhaps smaller venues playing chamber music is the exception. The BSO playing @ Tanglewood NEEDS ampification (especially for those sitting at the more affordable "lawn seats". New construction of large spaces for "classical music" must also accomadate other "performing arts". Opera has their performers individually "body miked". The famed Boston Symphony Hall is constantly undergoing "renovations", "restorations" or "improvements" to "preserve" their "famed acoustics". But which "version" of these various changes through time is considered the "magic reference" ?