Jump to content

Stereophile Review of AR3a...


Peter Breuninger

Recommended Posts

Why do we conclude that Advent beat AR in this, or that there was even a comparison in these terms?

I can't say that my notes regarding Advents are all that positive, my conclusion being that they are most popular because they look nice and can be acquired for peanuts, or less.... :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

In the form that it has been presented let's call this what it is: a gimmick. It's rather like saying we're going to compare old Fords and old Chevys. The writer apparently does not acknowledge there is no AR-3a--there are lots of them with different drivers, etc. There are pages and pages of these variations in the manual. These differences are part of what drives the discussions on this board. To ignore these differences is an insult to the people who built those speakers.

For that article to have any meaning at all beyond being a gimmick the writer would have to specify which drivers are in the ARs he is using. Then we would want to know other factors--for example, the condition of the pots. Were the pots used at all in the "tests?" Did anyone examine these speakers internally to check on the wiring, etc. Finally, what are the serial numbers? From the sound of it you could be comparing rewired, recapped Advents with falling apart ARs.

These are not mere quibbles they go to the heart of what kind of journalism do we have here? One where the author knows his/her subject or one where it's just another piece dashed off.

The author admits the ARs did not sound quite right, but apparently did not examine--or have someone else examine--the speakers to see if perhaps this sound deficiency might be due to some problems with the speakers themselves. As others have pointed out, people may prefer Advents or Dynacos because of THEIR sound, but that is a subjective judgment. ARs do NOT sound bad or deficient. Different, yes. It sounds to me (pun intended) like you may have some bad speakers.

To compound this by just asking for another "pair" on short notice (after the review has pretty much been written) is a bit like getting blisters from a pair of shoes and walking into a shoe store and asking for another pair. If you are going to write an article like the one proposed, do some research. It would not have taken too much time to research the differences in ARs, to interview a few of the old hands around here who could add some detail and depth to the story.

Lastly, many of us on this board believe speaker placement and "tuning" can matter as much as the $10,000 interconnects Stereophile advertises. You would not place an AR the same way you would a Dynaco or an Advent. So what were the placement circumstances?

This strikes me as an excellent example of all that is wrong with contemporary journalism. The time to have posted on this board would have been at the beginning, not now. The cynic in me even wonders if this is an attempt to drive up readership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For that article to have any meaning at all beyond being a gimmick the writer would have to specify which drivers are in the ARs he is using. Then we would want to know other factors--for example, the condition of the pots. Were the pots used at all in the "tests?" Did anyone examine these speakers internally to check on the wiring, etc. Finally, what are the serial numbers? From the sound of it you could be comparing rewired, recapped Advents with falling apart ARs.

Cool. Presume Peter being clueless would be the root of any disparity between the panel's findings and our preferences?

The pair I have was measured and deemed in proper working condition. Before I go to press I would like to hear a fully restored, but not modified, example.

Did you not read the Bozak review?

Or note that Atkinson would be doing measurements?

He's clueless too, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the form that it has been presented let's call this what it is: a gimmick. It's rather like saying we're going to compare old Fords and old Chevys. The writer apparently does not acknowledge there is no AR-3a--there are lots of them with different drivers, etc. There are pages and pages of these variations in the manual. These differences are part of what drives the discussions on this board. To ignore these differences is an insult to the people who built those speakers.

For that article to have any meaning at all beyond being a gimmick the writer would have to specify which drivers are in the ARs he is using. Then we would want to know other factors--for example, the condition of the pots. Were the pots used at all in the "tests?" Did anyone examine these speakers internally to check on the wiring, etc. Finally, what are the serial numbers? From the sound of it you could be comparing rewired, recapped Advents with falling apart ARs.

These are not mere quibbles they go to the heart of what kind of journalism do we have here? One where the author knows his/her subject or one where it's just another piece dashed off.

The author admits the ARs did not sound quite right, but apparently did not examine--or have someone else examine--the speakers to see if perhaps this sound deficiency might be due to some problems with the speakers themselves. As others have pointed out, people may prefer Advents or Dynacos because of THEIR sound, but that is a subjective judgment. ARs do NOT sound bad or deficient. Different, yes. It sounds to me (pun intended) like you may have some bad speakers.

To compound this by just asking for another "pair" on short notice (after the review has pretty much been written) is a bit like getting blisters from a pair of shoes and walking into a shoe store and asking for another pair. If you are going to write an article like the one proposed, do some research. It would not have taken too much time to research the differences in ARs, to interview a few of the old hands around here who could add some detail and depth to the story.

Lastly, many of us on this board believe speaker placement and "tuning" can matter as much as the $10,000 interconnects Stereophile advertises. You would not place an AR the same way you would a Dynaco or an Advent. So what were the placement circumstances?

This strikes me as an excellent example of all that is wrong with contemporary journalism. The time to have posted on this board would have been at the beginning, not now. The cynic in me even wonders if this is an attempt to drive up readership.

I agree 100%. Having subscribed to and enjoyed Audio hobbyist magazines many years ago, Audio, Stereo Review, and High Fidelity, I do not like or trust this one. I've read a few issues, a few reviews and I think all of the three I mentioned were far superior. This article is of no value that I can see. They do not even have the skill to restore these speakers themselves and then check them out to see if the work was done satisfactorily, what could they possibly know about audio that would interest me? The editor of the magazine not only posts on another hobbyist type web site, I think he is a contributor to its finances. Nothing he ever wrote impressed me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't give this much thought when I first read it, but the more I do the less sure I am that it's possible to "fully restore but not modify" a vintage speaker. I see people arguing all the time about whether different types and brands of caps or refoaming kits really do restore the original sound. It may be that used examples that have been given the minimum amount of cleaning and repair to fix any major problems really is the most meaningful test of what someone who's interested in acquiring some vintage units is likely to encounter in the real world vs. speakers that have been through even the most meticulous "restoration."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Zilch, Oldguide didn't call anyone clueless - you utilized the expression, and then followed up, with a boot-strapping self-reference.

Clearly, he's making the point that this comparison could very well be flawed, and offer little practical value - legitimately comparing/evaluating 30 or 40 year-old equipment presents more of a challenge than plugging in a couple of factory-fresh loudspeakers.

And so, if all of the old speakers weren't in their best possible condition, what, exactly, would be the point of this trip down Memory Lane?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't give this much thought when I first read it, but the more I do the less sure I am that it's possible to "fully restore but not modify" a vintage speaker. I see people arguing all the time about whether different types and brands of caps or refoaming kits really do restore the original sound. It may be that used examples that have been given the minimum amount of cleaning and repair to fix any major problems really is the most meaningful test of what someone who's interested in acquiring some vintage units is likely to encounter in the real world vs. speakers that have been through even the most meticulous "restoration."

Point taken, but for the AR-3a, it's possible to keep things pretty simple:

1.) Cloth-surround woofer

2.) Properly-cleaned level controls without dead spots (this is clearly do-able)

3a.) Keep the original cap

3b.) Replace the original cap with a mainstream substitute

The Dyna has a rubber surround, and the Advent couldn't be easier to re-foam.

What's the big deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And so, if all of the old speakers weren't in their best possible condition, what, exactly, would be the point of this trip down Memory Lane?

If Peter can manage to drum up that pair of "restored" 3a's, then it would be "here's what you're likely to find if you shop for used vintage and here's how well you can fix it up today." Which would actually not be such a bad thing for someone to know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clearly, he's making the point that this comparison could very well be flawed, and offer little practical value - legitimately comparing/evaluating 30 or 40 year-old equipment presents more of a challenge than plugging in a couple of factory-fresh loudspeakers.

Peter is here asking for access to a "known" good pair for use in verifying his panel's findings, to be certain that they are not based upon anomalous samples. Kick his ass for desiring to do QA on the results before printing them.... :P

The editor of the magazine not only posts on another hobbyist type web site, I think he is a contributor to its finances. Nothing he ever wrote impressed me.

Said editor being whom, SM?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter is here asking for access to a "known" good pair for use in verifying his panel's findings, to be certain that they are not based upon anomalous samples. Kick his ass for desiring to do QA on the results before printing them.... -_-

Said editor being whom, SM?

Zilch, the name of the editor of Stereophile Magazine is John Atkinson. Here is a man who will sit at what can only be called a "workstation" to edit recordings by tweaking a 64 band equalizer to the nearest tenth of a decibel before he gets it "right" but would not even nudge a bass or treble control to make an otherwise perfectly fine recording listenable because its tonal balance when played through his sound system is badly skewed one way or another. I doubt that he even places much value on having any form of electronic control over the FR of a playback system except maybe in private where his readers won't find out about it.

We have debated here for years how to best restore this aged equipment, especially the tweeters on AR3 and AR3a which are known to have deteriorated and have found no satisfactory substitutes for the original parts. It has also been acknowledged that these parts have deteriorated because of an inherent characteristic limitation in the original materials selected for critical elements in them. Yet here comes someone who figures he can just go out and borrow a pair in good condition from somewhere convenient to him, he is so unknowledgeable about the realities of this product. But even if such a thing somehow rarely existed, why should anyone in his right mind who owned them and surely prized them highly lend them to a magazine who between their megawatt Krells and their microwatt Shook Moons or whatever they are called might damage them beyond repair. I know I wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AR bullys come out, LOL! Give our beloved ARs a good review or else! You don't think

others notice the threat and the desperation?

I have to wonder if a few here are motivated to maintain the value of their "classics".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AR bullys come out, LOL! Give our beloved ARs a good review or else! You don't think

others notice the threat and the desperation?

I have to wonder if a few here are motivated to maintain the value of their "classics".

If I wasn't 3000 miles away I would probably be up for letting someone test my speakers as long as I could be there to watch what gets done to them (what they're hooked up to, how loud they get driven, etc). It's the "spare for a couple of weeks" part that would give me pause. I just don't loan any of my stuff out of my hands for that long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AR bullys come out, LOL! Give our beloved ARs a good review or else! You don't think

others notice the threat and the desperation?

I have to wonder if a few here are motivated to maintain the value of their "classics".

Personally, I really don't appreciate the tone some on either side are taking here. You know who you are. Overall, this board has been an island of dialog, courtesy and civility, of course, with some notable exceptions. (Yes, I am certainly culpable is some of the worst... takes a troll to know a troll....)

So a few comments on Stereophile:

- These guys are REVIEWERS. It's what they do for a living. Like any movie, restaurant, art or whatever critic, they are not obliged to be perfect, just honest, informed and transparent. If people want to debate the results, whatever they are, there are forums to do that. But don't attack the process of reviewing or criticism. I think it is great, and flattering, that they want to do this listening test, and seem to be doing it competently.

- The AR 3a, etc, have survived in the marketplace, and the marketplace of ideas, for many years. At its best, a re-evaluation will add to the accumulated information. At its worst, it will fade away. It's neither going to kill the legacy, nor make collectors rich, IMO.

-k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But even if such a thing somehow rarely existed, why should anyone in his right mind who owned them and surely prized them highly lend them to a magazine who between their megawatt Krells and their microwatt Shook Moons or whatever they are called might damage them beyond repair. I know I wouldn't.

They are welcome to mine, which I have demonstrated measure substantially in accordance with data published by Allison 40 years ago, in some respects, indistinguishably so. "Good" AR3a's are not so rare as some here would apparently prefer to presume, in my experience.

As Pete suggests, this may be more about money than music for some; there are certainly plenty of indicators in evidence....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I really don't appreciate the tone some on either side are taking here. You know who you are. Overall, this board has been an island of dialog, courtesy and civility, of course, with some notable exceptions. (Yes, I am certainly culpable is some of the worst... takes a troll to know a troll....)

So a few comments on Stereophile:

- These guys are REVIEWERS. It's what they do for a living. Like any movie, restaurant, art or whatever critic, they are not obliged to be perfect, just honest, informed and transparent. If people want to debate the results, whatever they are, there are forums to do that. But don't attack the process of reviewing or criticism. I think it is great, and flattering, that they want to do this listening test, and seem to be doing it competently.

- The AR 3a, etc, have survived in the marketplace, and the marketplace of ideas, for many years. At its best, a re-evaluation will add to the accumulated information. At its worst, it will fade away. It's neither going to kill the legacy, nor make collectors rich, IMO.

-k

Not sure if this is directed at me, but I certainly have had enough bad tone, insults,

etc. directed at me over the years here, by just a few seemingly obsessed fans.

I replied here, because certainly the tone of a few of the last posts would tend to drive

Stereophile people away, rather than welcome them and that is unfortunate. Not

sure if you're backing me up here Ken or directing the bad tone at me? Howard has

commented several times that he thinks a few here are in it for the money, what basis

does he have for this claim, did he take any time to investigate? I certainly have given

all of my advice for free and have never been paid for working on any ARs, Advents,

Dynas, or much of what I speak of here. I bring up maintaining value because there

does not seem to be any other reason for another party to care what others think of a

product/design. I would not be surprised if it was about money for them.

I certainly welcome the Stereophile review.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are welcome to mine, which I have demonstrated measure substantially in accordance with data published by Allison 40 years ago, in some respects, indistinguishably so. "Good" AR3a's are not so rare as you and others would apparently prefer to presume, in my experience.

They only seem rare if you're looking for good functioning units that are also good cosmetically. For some reason, everyone who bought AR-3a's in the 70's either tried to use them at a Black Sabbath concert or lived with someone who used them as plant stands. One of mine had a water ring on the bottom when I got it. Go figure.

I got the impression, though, that Peter didn't have the time and/or the budget to ship them cross-country and back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... I have demonstrated measure substantially in accordance with data published by Allison 40 years ago, in some respects, indistinguishably so. "Good" AR3a's are not so rare as you and others would apparently prefer to presume, in my experience.

...

This will be their out if the review is negative, oh everybody knows that it is rare to

find a pair with drivers that are up to spec .... true or not. Even if Stereophile measured

them to confirm performance ... they will offer some excuse to dismiss it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Intelligent people can separate the emotional from the rational - whether they do, or not, usually speaks more to whether their purpose is served.

And although there have been some criticisms of Stereophile, the publisher, his reviewers, and his reviewers' methods or possible agenda, they are easily severed from the salient point, which is: how legitimate is the supposed testing and comparison of these three vintage loudspeakers, and what point would this article serve if the speakers in question are *less* than what they could and should be?

The AR enthusiasts here need make no apology for their bias and enthusiasm - remember, this is the Classic Speaker Pages Forum, after all, but we would like to see the AR-3a's evaluation be as fair & legitimate as possible, given the proficiency and wherewithal of Stereophile magazine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone!

What a great thread, please keep the barbs down though.

And, please guys, JA is really a good and thoughtful man and does his best at a-n-y project he is involved in.

Ken, it's good to see you post up too. You have a long history in the industry and have garnered much respect.

To the matter at hand: I indeed got a call today and Jim is providing a restored pair. He'll have them down with in a week and a half.

I'll turn in finished copy on or before May 15. I trully respect the companies and products that this project covers and I'll do a great job (for all of us.)

Very sincerely,

Peter Breuninger

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent comments. I could not have done better, myself. The success of the big Advent in relation to the AR-3a and AR-2ax had more to do with changing listener tastes than an improved ability to simulate a live, acoustic-instrument musical performance in a good concert hall.

It's good to see acknowledgment that ARs cater to a "specialized" taste, however, there's a obvious elitism inherent in the characterization of the vast majority of listeners with other preferences as "headbangers."

[i KNOW you don't mean ME, of course.... -_- ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd mainly be curious about the musical tastes and live-music listening experiences of those panel members. No doubt any vintage AR/Allison speaker would have problems satisfying some of the head bangers out there.

Howard Ferstler

This is a tough crowd!

Member one: 30 year Philadelphia Orchestra Exec, Instrument: Basoon

Member two: 25 year concert attendee/subscriber, Philadelphia Orchestra, PA Opera Co., Wilma Theater

Member three: some smuck we found on the street (just Kidding) similar to above.

Music tastes: Rap, Country, Metal (opps, I mean, Chamber, solo acoustic, 60s Jazz, large symphonic)

Ages: over 50 and under 100

My best,

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

....

I particularly agree with your remarks about a man who claims he can hear a 0.1 dB change in the adjustment to the loudness of one band of a 64-band graphic equalizer. Anybody who claims he can hear that well is deluded.

...

Howard Ferstler

Bitter? ... http://www.stereophile.com/reference/101/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent comments. I could not have done better, myself. The success of the big Advent in relation to the AR-3a and AR-2ax had more to do with changing listener tastes than an improved ability to simulate a live, acoustic-instrument musical performance in a good concert hall.

I don't think the relative appeal of Advents vs ARs was altogether accidental. When I was shopping for my speakers, it occurred to me at the time that the Advent ads seemed aimed at buyers in their teens and 20's while AR's ads never really changed from the "white paper with figures" style originated by EV until way into the late-Teledyne period. Definitely aimed at an older, classical-music-preferring crowd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's good to see acknowledgment that ARs cater to a "specialized" taste, however, there's a obvious elitism inherent in the characterization of the vast majority of listeners with other preferences as "headbangers."

If you consider the market share AR had at its height and refer to Ken Kantor's previous post about AR's sales peaking in the late 70's, it wasn't a specialized taste at the time they were manufactured. People who prefer the kinds of music ARs' original designers made them for have been a dwindling portion of the population for generations.

It has been my observation that "elitist" is a derogatory generally (not specifically here, just generally) uttered by people trying to demean others who are actually are better educated or more competent than they are. I try to avoid using it because even though there are contexts in which it could be legitimately used, for me it invariably it calls up mental images of people on TV carrying picket signs denouncing "morans."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...