Jump to content


- - - - -

AR LST speakers


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
94 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_matty g_*

Guest_matty g_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 January 2007 - 02:39 AM

THANK YOU, VERN!


Matt

#2 dynaco_dan

dynaco_dan

    dynaco_dan

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,873 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 January 2007 - 02:30 AM

Hi there;

I would like to put my 2 1/2 cents worth into this poorly directed topic.

My suggestion is this should be the end of this topic.

Please take this out of hand and tasteless discussion into the email realm please.

The last two write-ups were beyond me.

I and others come here to enjoy reading and writing about our enjoyable hobby.

It is obvious that we have a difference of opinions and views being expressed here, but it has entered into the arena, boxing arena.

We have at least one person who obviously has a musical instrument background, possibly much more.

In the other corner we have another man who historically has a lot to do with some our past speaker designs, not just with AR.

The flavour of this site is changing, not for the better, unfortunately.

We may lose one or both of you or more members if this continues.

My health does not allow mw to get distressed anymore.

This site and all the enjoyment I find here, is is my only therapy at this time.

I don't feel that I want to stay here and read or write anymore.

Please either get married to each other or stop squabbling.
VERN

dynaco_dan2@yahoo.ca

#3 soundminded

soundminded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts

Posted 26 January 2007 - 01:32 AM

Just because he obviously knows nothing about musical compositions or the nature of music, nothing about musical instruments and the way they produce sound, nothing about the acoustics of the rooms music is performed and heard in, and nothing about how that alters music and how it's perceived by an audience, what makes you think he isn't qualified as an authority on equipment designed to accurately reproduce it artificially?

#4 ar_pro

ar_pro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 661 posts

Posted 26 January 2007 - 12:26 AM

Please disregard my previous post, Ken...I've just made it through your little treatise on Dead Art, and it's pretty clear that your understanding and application of aesthetic principles is of no value.

You are way, way out of your league, and not unsurprisingly arrogant, to boot.

#5 soundminded

soundminded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts

Posted 25 January 2007 - 11:25 PM

I'm not sure I know what you are talking about. My interest is in classical music, opera, choral and pipe organ music, and the like. I enjoy many other kinds of music and have lots of non classical recordings too but my main interest is in duplicating the most beautiful sounds I've had the rare privelege to hear at some classical concerts. For me, this is the justificaton for the expense, effort, and interest in high fidelity sound reproduction. I make no judgements about other kinds of music other people enjoy most except to say they are not my primary interest and some are of no interest to me at all.

When I understood the importance of the role acoustics of concert halls play in creating those sounds from what Dr. Bose wrote, I tried to understand how concert halls work to do what they do and how to duplicate that effect. One conclusion I've reached is that it probably isn't possible to record it directly. The closest approach in many respects is a process called binaural recording which can only be properly reproduced through headphones. I also tried to understand how acoustics affect the substance of music itself so that I could know if these effects create sound which is actually better or just different. I've been at it for about 33 years.

Then I tried to understand how musical instruments propagate sound and how the rooms in my own house affect them. Also how loudspeakers propagate sound differently from musical instruments and what could be done to make them more alike. I am fortunate to have some musical instruments in my house to compare recorded music to. I've been at that for about 18 years.

I am not surprised that to those who think about audio equipment design along more "traditional" lines, the ideas I express sound like jibberish in a foreign language or from another universe. The only disappointment on my part is that while I've spent 33 years considering what's wrong with the conventional way of looking at it, some people won't give it even 33 seconds of serious consideraton. But I'm not surprised. I've dealt with people who design, sell, and buy this kind of stuff all of my life. I'm used to it.

BTW, I've been registered at your referenced quadraphonic site for a long time now but haven't visited it much.

#6 ar_pro

ar_pro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 661 posts

Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:57 PM

"Personally, only about 3% of my media is music from before
1900, and suspect that is more than average."


And as an educated individual, you're content with this, why?

#7 roundhome

roundhome

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 311 posts

Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:54 PM

I may not be able to spell it correct but my 8 year old son wants a chello and my 10 year old plays drums they both listen to every kind of music I have and know a quality speaker when the heir it. I have four AR 9s in my system. driven by four pioneer spc 4 amps and a fully restord Sansui qrx 9001 quad unit probly the only house were the kids say Papa turn the music down we are trying to do are home work.

I got interested in this thred becouse i'm working on four LST's to put in place of the AR 9s to see how full the room gets:)

#8 soundminded

soundminded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts

Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:52 PM

I'll agree with you on one thing Ken, we do not live in the same universe...of ideas.

I regard this site as a hobbyist forum for an exchange of ideas and experiences and that is all. If mine don't interest you, that's all you have to say about it, no long exchanges necessary. I will not take it as an insult.

#9 roundhome

roundhome

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 311 posts

Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:46 PM

>>I was wondering reading all this if you have ever
>listened to
>>new recordings done with dvd audio 5.1?
>>On a good surround sound system. It seams to me it might
>not
>>be the boxes but the recording methed. Remember
>guadraphonic
>>and the 8 stacked LST there was a add that stated some
>were
>>that it sounded like the piano was right next to the guy.
>>Sound comes from all around us. we may only have two ears
>but
>>with them can tell were every thing around us is and how
>far
>>away it is . come over and talk to some of the guys in
>the
>>quad forum http://www.quadraphonicquad.com
>>I like and enjoy (also learn a lot by) reading this. Just
>a
>>freindly invitation I would like to see how some of the
>guys
>>respond to this topic.
>>keep going this is a learning thing for all of us please
>don't
>>think its a waste of any ones time. we look at it like
>your
>>Mentores.:) from two different points
>>Jim
>>sorry for jumping in
>
>Sorry for jumping in? On the contrary, thanks for expressing
>another point of view. Quadraphonic sound was my jumping off
>point. Experimenting with it and understanding why I didn't
>think it was satisfactory was the beginning for me to what I
>feel is a much greater understanding of the problem. There's
>a lot more to be said but frankly, I assumed nobody else was
>interested.
>
>Everyone claims accurate sound reproduction. What is accurate
>sound reproduction anyway? There are actually two distinct
>very different problems. 1. "They are here." This
>is what you would hear if the musicians are in the same room
>with you. Fine for a small ensemble but as the number of
>musicians and the power of their instruments gets greater,
>less and less desirable. 2. "You are there." This
>is the sound you hear when you go to a live performance in a
>large venue. Of the two problems IMO this is by far the more
>difficult to solve. You must not only duplicate the sound of
>the instruments themselves but the effect of the acoustics as
>well. If there was only one thing Dr. Bose ever said that he
>should be remembered for, it's that the sound he measured only
>19 feet from the performing stage at Boston Symphony Hall
>(possibly the best room in America for listening to music in)
>was 89% due to reflections, the acoustics of the room. And as
>you go back further, the percentage gets greater and greater.
>Therefore the sound you hear in the audience is almost
>entirely due to acoustics. But this sound only comprises a
>small percentage of what gets on recordings and even that is
>not reproduced in the same way you hear it live. So if you
>want to hear anything like what you'd hear at a live
>performance, you must understand and somehow recreate that
>aspect of it. Does that sound like a bizarre notion to you?
>My experiments and thinking about it led to a US patent. And
>that patent was in part infringed upon (I contend) by Yamaha
>in possible use of the user mode in their model DSP1. When I
>saw it, I recognized it and bought one immediately. Two
>Patent attorneys advised me not to sue as my prospects of
>winning were not good and the cost would have been very high.
>So I didn't. As it turned out, few people took that unit
>seriously, probably nobody but me ever put it to what I see as
>its potential use. There may have been others, it hardly
>matters. The patent is now expired anyway.
>
>One of the problems you have to think about when you consider
>concert hall acoustics is the fact that in a good concert
>hall, you can't tell where the reverberation comes from. I
>did a lot of thinking and experimenting with directional
>effects and how to design them out of a sound system. The key
>frankly is to have a large number of small speakers, each
>contributing only a very small amount to the overall sound.
>The sound from any one direction being an insignificant
>percentage of the totality. There are other techniques too.
>This is how the acoustic architect does it as well. He uses
>many convex refletive shapes and never concave ones to avoid
>focusing sound from any one direction. (under the Capitol
>dome, there are two spots where people can hear each other at
>a whisper even with a lot of noise around them because of
>focusing of reflections.) Among the patents I had to analyze
>was Berkovitz of AR which the Patent office used to challenge
>my application. Interesting what notions people come up with.
> Berkovitz said every echo after 100 milliseconds was
>indistinguishable from random noise. Not my analysis at all.
>I've been experimenting on and off with what you would call
>surround sound for about 33 years. I just put one together in
>my bedroom using a 5.1 receiver and a DVD player. Not much to
>talk about though, good for movies. I will tell you this
>much, entirely different kinds of sound systems are possible
>whose sound bears little resemblance to anything anyone is
>likely to have ever heard coming out of a machine, but if Ken
>Kantor is right, and he probably is, few people would actually
>be interested in them, not enough to make them commercially
>viable.
>
>I'll be glad to visit your other site. It's possible I may
>already be registered there.
>
I have had quad stuff from the begining and also brought back from Japan one of the first DSP1 unis all the instruction were in Japanese.Still have it and all My quad stuff. One of the quad Members Just wrote this about live verses recorded

(Quote (I have the hybrid SACD of Nektar - Live in New York which is essentially a quad mix with an ambient center channel. It replicates the sense of being at a concert in an auditorium better than any other music disc I have heard. Of course the CD-4 lp of the Allman Brothers Live at the Fillmore East is pretty awesome as well.

Back in the 70s I knew an audiophile with a monster quad setup, huge speakers and powerful amps/preamps. I had come back from a live concert in New York (Nektar as it turns out) and he put on one of their quad albums. The music sounded better on his system, louder and clearer, than the live show. And the show was one of the best sounding concerts I had seen.)

So with this aspect Ken is right and you are using Kens Ideas about speakers and putting them into a quad form your music comes from the correct timing of reflections as for some of the others like timber I don't know enough about that to say.
Please continue so we all can have a better understanding.
JIM

#10 soundminded

soundminded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts

Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:16 PM

I am sorry to have to say I agree with Ken Kantor in this regard Robert. It's sad but true. As a percentage of the total market, classical music has dwindled. There are lots of reasons. One may be an end to music appreciation classes in public schools. Hard to believe but I suspect many children grow up without ever having heard a single piece of classical music in their lives. Still there are some of us who hold tight to things we feel are of transcendant value. I just hope it doesn't die out altogether. I notice there are parents seeking instruction for musical instruments for their children. Where I live, those instructors especially for string instruments are few and far between.

#11 soundminded

soundminded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts

Posted 25 January 2007 - 09:09 PM

>I was wondering reading all this if you have ever listened to
>new recordings done with dvd audio 5.1?
>On a good surround sound system. It seams to me it might not
>be the boxes but the recording methed. Remember guadraphonic
>and the 8 stacked LST there was a add that stated some were
>that it sounded like the piano was right next to the guy.
>Sound comes from all around us. we may only have two ears but
>with them can tell were every thing around us is and how far
>away it is . come over and talk to some of the guys in the
>quad forum http://www.quadraphonicquad.com
>I like and enjoy (also learn a lot by) reading this. Just a
>freindly invitation I would like to see how some of the guys
>respond to this topic.
>keep going this is a learning thing for all of us please don't
>think its a waste of any ones time. we look at it like your
>Mentores.:) from two different points
>Jim
>sorry for jumping in

Sorry for jumping in? On the contrary, thanks for expressing another point of view. Quadraphonic sound was my jumping off point. Experimenting with it and understanding why I didn't think it was satisfactory was the beginning for me to what I feel is a much greater understanding of the problem. There's a lot more to be said but frankly, I assumed nobody else was interested.

Everyone claims accurate sound reproduction. What is accurate sound reproduction anyway? There are actually two distinct very different problems. 1. "They are here." This is what you would hear if the musicians are in the same room with you. Fine for a small ensemble but as the number of musicians and the power of their instruments gets greater, less and less desirable. 2. "You are there." This is the sound you hear when you go to a live performance in a large venue. Of the two problems IMO this is by far the more difficult to solve. You must not only duplicate the sound of the instruments themselves but the effect of the acoustics as well. If there was only one thing Dr. Bose ever said that he should be remembered for, it's that the sound he measured only 19 feet from the performing stage at Boston Symphony Hall (possibly the best room in America for listening to music in) was 89% due to reflections, the acoustics of the room. And as you go back further, the percentage gets greater and greater. Therefore the sound you hear in the audience is almost entirely due to acoustics. But this sound only comprises a small percentage of what gets on recordings and even that is not reproduced in the same way you hear it live. So if you want to hear anything like what you'd hear at a live performance, you must understand and somehow recreate that aspect of it. Does that sound like a bizarre notion to you? My experiments and thinking about it led to a US patent. And that patent was in part infringed upon (I contend) by Yamaha in possible use of the user mode in their model DSP1. When I saw it, I recognized it and bought one immediately. Two Patent attorneys advised me not to sue as my prospects of winning were not good and the cost would have been very high. So I didn't. As it turned out, few people took that unit seriously, probably nobody but me ever put it to what I see as its potential use. There may have been others, it hardly matters. The patent is now expired anyway.

One of the problems you have to think about when you consider concert hall acoustics is the fact that in a good concert hall, you can't tell where the reverberation comes from. I did a lot of thinking and experimenting with directional effects and how to design them out of a sound system. The key frankly is to have a large number of small speakers, each contributing only a very small amount to the overall sound. The sound from any one direction being an insignificant percentage of the totality. There are other techniques too. This is how the acoustic architect does it as well. He uses many convex refletive shapes and never concave ones to avoid focusing sound from any one direction. (under the Capitol dome, there are two spots where people can hear each other at a whisper even with a lot of noise around them because of focusing of reflections.) Among the patents I had to analyze was Berkovitz of AR which the Patent office used to challenge my application. Interesting what notions people come up with. Berkovitz said every echo after 100 milliseconds was indistinguishable from random noise. Not my analysis at all. I've been experimenting on and off with what you would call surround sound for about 33 years. I just put one together in my bedroom using a 5.1 receiver and a DVD player. Not much to talk about though, good for movies. I will tell you this much, entirely different kinds of sound systems are possible whose sound bears little resemblance to anything anyone is likely to have ever heard coming out of a machine, but if Ken Kantor is right, and he probably is, few people would actually be interested in them, not enough to make them commercially viable.

I'll be glad to visit your other site. It's possible I may already be registered there.

#12 roundhome

roundhome

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 311 posts

Posted 25 January 2007 - 08:32 PM

I was wondering reading all this if you have ever listened to new recordings done with dvd audio 5.1?
On a good surround sound system. It seams to me it might not be the boxes but the recording methed. Remember guadraphonic and the 8 stacked LST there was a add that stated some were that it sounded like the piano was right next to the guy. Sound comes from all around us. we may only have two ears but with them can tell were every thing around us is and how far away it is . come over and talk to some of the guys in the quad forum http://www.quadraphonicquad.com
I like and enjoy (also learn a lot by) reading this. Just a freindly invitation I would like to see how some of the guys respond to this topic.
keep going this is a learning thing for all of us please don't think its a waste of any ones time. we look at it like your Mentores.:) from two different points
Jim
sorry for jumping in

#13 Robert_S

Robert_S

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 167 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Sound

Posted 25 January 2007 - 08:10 PM

> Classical music is an anachronism. It's a dead art form, which speaks to fewer and fewer living people.

What! -- The following link may serve to illustrate a contradictory view:

http://news.bbc.co.u...dio/4100276.stm

> Art is all about change

Really? Perhaps you are referring to 'postmodern right wing progressivism' in art, but not 'Art', as a whole.

Calm down girls!

;^)

#14 soundminded

soundminded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts

Posted 25 January 2007 - 07:38 PM

>Sorry, there are so many bizarre notions in your last post
>that I wouldn't know where to start. Audio equipment stopped
>being made for classical music after classical music lost its
>audience, not the other way around. Radio stations changed
>format. Record stores changed merchandising. Gradually,
>speaker companies got the message.

It's nice to know that all of the advertising rhetoric aside, in their heart of hearts, audio engineers have abandoned their clumsy efforts to duplicate the sound of live classical music. So they have finally resigned themselves to the fact that the problem has beaten them. Good, this has opened up a whole new door to marketing products costing tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars which have no objective goal, no standard of performance to be judged by. This makes the potential for new models and financial profits open ended. And this is hardly surprising to me since carefully reading the philosophy of the current gurus of this industry like Dr. Floyd Toole as expressed in their technical papers, you find that their objective is to discover what the market likes most, not what sounds most like real music. Oh by the way, here is an even more bizarre notion, a recording is NOT MUSIC, it is a facsimile, just as a movie travelogue and a post card is not a vacation to Europe. And considering that over a hundred years of the most remarkable technological progress in history has occurred during the development of sound technology, in regard to reproducing serious music, at its best it's a rather disappointing facsimile at that.


>As for the conspiracy of clueless speaker designers, to be
>rescued by... YOU ...I am speechless. (Giggling a little, but
>speechless.) I thought about asking what the hell you are
>talking about with the harmonic thing, but can predict your
>response about useless publications, you hearing, the
>establishment, private experiments, blah blah blah. The only
>one of the regular symptoms of audio crankism you haven't yet
>exhibited is the Secrecy and Intellectual Property gambit,
>wherein one can't tell anyone else what they are doing or it
>would be stolen by nefarious forces.

Speaker designers clueless? Anyone who would entertain the notion that sound coming out of a pair of two or three cubic foot wooden shoeboxes could fool anyone with normal hearing and a normal brain for even one second into thinking that they were listening to the sound of a hundred piece symphony orchestra at Carnegie Hall or a three hundred voice choir and a pipe organ playing at the Mormon Tabernacle would have to be clueless, even if those shoeboxes said AR LST, NHT, or Tymphony on them.

#15 kkantor

kkantor

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 761 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2007 - 06:56 PM

Sorry, there are so many bizarre notions in your last post that I wouldn't know where to start. Audio equipment stopped being made for classical music after classical music lost its audience, not the other way around. Radio stations changed format. Record stores changed merchandising. Gradually, speaker companies got the message.

As for the conspiracy of clueless speaker designers, to be rescued by... YOU ...I am speechless. (Giggling a little, but speechless.) I thought about asking what the hell you are talking about with the harmonic thing, but can predict your response about useless publications, you hearing, the establishment, private experiments, blah blah blah. The only one of the regular symptoms of audio crankism you haven't yet exhibited is the Secrecy and Intellectual Property gambit, wherein one can't tell anyone else what they are doing or it would be stolen by nefarious forces.

-k

kkantor.spaces.live.com

#16 kkantor

kkantor

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 761 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2007 - 06:51 PM

>I'm not interested in trading library references here. If I
>were giving a dissertation that might be important. This is
>an informal internet discussion. It doesn't matter to me
>where knowledge comes from, it's the knowledge itself that
>counts. I am offering you an idea which may be new and
>different to consider and explore. Whether or not you do is
>up to you, I am not trying to prove any point. The people who
>publish these papers, and I've read enough of them to know,
>often do in a laboratory similar things to what I do at home
>although they usually have far better controlled conditions
>and better measuring equipment. OTOH, I have equal motivation
>and better trained hearing, a decided advantage. The other
>evening I honed it by speding several hours evaluating several
>violins of no particular distinction which a student was
>considering for purchase. We all heard the same sounds and
>had radically different opinions of what we heard and what it
>meant. Where does that leave measurements? There are a lot
>of well documented technical papers whose basic premises are
>wrong, whose mesurement techniques are questionable, whose
>logic and conclusions are badly flawed, and they are accepted
>as gospel for years, even decades going unchallenged. Read an
>80 page Master's degree thesis by someone named Cheevers
>proporting a method of evaluating harmonic distortion in audio
>amplifiers to categorze and characterize them leading to the
>conclusion that tube amplifiers are better than transistor
>amplifiers. How many blunders can you find in its logic?
>Hint, the first one is nearly at the very beginning.

Methinks he doth protest too much! Soundminded, you're a smart guy. You don't need to embarass yourself with verbose spin. This is a simple matter: Don't post your opinions as if they were facts. That's all. Very reasonable request.


>I cited Peter Snell as a well respected physicist who made an
>interestingt statement which provoked me to think along
>certain lines I hadn't considered before, that's all. I'm not
>interested in who gets credit for being first to say it. This
>is an internet discussion among hobbyists, not a place for
>formal dissertations to be presented and defended. Pedantism
>carries no weight with me.

I urge you to read your original post on this matter. Again, you presented your assertion as if it were historical fact. Plain and simple.



>Here I will have to strongly disagree with you. Tonality is
>one of the four basic elements of music along with melody,
>harmony, and rhythm. Soundstaging is not. In fact, it is
>relatively unimportant. The system of arranging musicians in
>a symphony orchestra called "The American Seating
>Plan" is a relatively recent invention and is not
>necessarily universally adopted or even applicable to other
>ensembles. The ability to exactly localize the source of
>individual musical instruments is often difficult when many of
>them play together, or when you are not in the front row
>seats. The better seats in a concert hall are often further
>back. The reverberation of the acoustics which adds so much
>to musical enjoyment blurs localization.
>

Oh, localization is more fundamental than any of your four "basic elements of music" abstractions. Pitch and direction are what the human hearing system is hard-wired for. Things like tonality and beat are much further down the cognitive processing chain. In fact, they are widely considered subjective quantities, while P and D are objective ones.


>The transformer controlled the hf balance of direct firing
>tweeters only and that is all or am I mistaken. AR LST made
>no provisions for independent control of reflected sound and
>its interaction with the listening room. Because of its
>unusually wide horizontal dispersion of mid and high
>frequencies, it has greater interaction with room acoustics
>than speakers with narrow dispersion. This made the optimal
>listening area greater but it made no provision for adjusting
>for differences in absorption/reflectivity of reverberant
>sound indepdently of keeping the direct field flat.
>Therefore, the setting was at best a compromise, a tradeoff
>between flat direct field and flat total energy transfer.
>Having both simultaneously was an impossibility

No, the LST transformer was introduced to allow adjustment of the woofer, independent of the mids and tweets.


>What I have concluded which I find interesting
>is that while the human ear is less sensitive to high
>frequencies than to midrange tones, the use the brain makes of
>it in judging sound both by its presence or absence and by its
>quality such as its directions of arrival is very important,
>far out of proportion to its quantity.

This is not in accordance with the understanding of many loudspeaker engineers and psychophysicists I know.



>No it's a matter of musical accuracy within the ability of the
>listener's hearing. By making it impossible to reproduce the
>extremes of frequency, a sound system precludes the
>possibility of reproducing convincingly the subjective
>tonality of musical instruments. Eliminate the treble and no
>violin will sound accurate. Too bad, this can be one of the
>most beautiful sounding istruments ever made. The best of
>them such as Strads and Guanari are the most expensive
>instruments which exist, some being called
>"priceless." When available at auction, they often
>sell in the millions of dollars. I know someone who refused 2
>million dollars for a Guanari del Gesu, not to sell it but to
>bequeath it. Even most pianos won't sound right and not just
>in their upper registers. Eliminate the bass and orchestras
>don't sound right losing much of their power. Basses and
>Cellos don't sound right. Tuba's don't sound right. Bass
>drums lose their impact. Pipe organs don't sound right.
>Pedal notes become completely inaudible. In short, music
>sounds thin, loses its richness.

I'm in the wrong universe to understand the above paragraph. I'll try reading it again if I ever decide to take psychedelic drugs.


>Not off axis.

Now you are just being plain difficult. The Bose design in question is not sensitive to the polars of the individual drivers, and you know that.


>Sadly, you are probably right about classical music. There
>are many possible contributing reasons but one of them which
>should not be overlooked is industry's complete failure to
>develop the technology to reproduce the beauty of its sound.

Give it up. Classical music is an anachronism. It's a dead art form, which speaks to fewer and fewer living people. Some of it may be beautiful, as some Baroque painting is. But, Art is all about change, not stasis. People want to hear music from their time, music that speaks to them about their life experiences, how ever abstractly. The audio manufacturers who maintained a reactionary allegience to old music were the first ones to go. Ones which embraced healthy creative evolution in the field of music, thrive.

I couldn't imagine being on the proverbial desert island with more than 2 or 3 classic music recordings, out of the dozens of works I want to bring. And live concerts? Yawn. Can humans get more pompous and stuffy? Classical audiences seem to forget that, oh, Beethoven was much like your typical rock and roller.

-k

#17 soundminded

soundminded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts

Posted 25 January 2007 - 02:29 PM

I'm adding an addendum to my previous posting. There are many distortions to music which engineers have utterly failed to consider let alone deal with in their schemes to record and reproduce music. Here are a few of them and why they are so important. (Don't bother looking any of this up either, you won't find it in any book or reference. This is the result of 33 years of thinking about and studying this problem.)

A critical one is reproducing musical instruments at the correct loudness and the relationship between the objective property of loudness and the subjective quality of perceived acoustical power. The objective property of loudness depends on the acoustical output energy of the instrument and the distance between the instrument and the listener. Human hearing is surprisingly good at judging distances to sources. It also picks up cues from the environment, the acoustics of venue for judging the distance to the source and the size and nature of the space it is in. The brain can make a judgement about how powerful the source it. A pipe organ even playing at a distance softly, filling up a cathedral with sound incuding its reverberant echoes which arrive over a period of 4 or 5 seconds is perceived as a powerful source of sound. So is a boat whistle in a port with its sound echoing off buildings, even mountains for several seconds. So is a distant train whistle. So is a full symphony orchestra some dozens of feet away filling a 900,000 cubic foot concert hall with sound echoing for up to 3 or more seconds. A stereo system which reproduces a symphony orchestra which appears to be only 5 or 10 feet away playing even at deafening levels is judged as a feeble source of sound power. If a symphony orchestra or a pipe organ could be physically reduced in size to fit into your listening room but retain its acoustic power, the first note it played fff would be the last sound you ever heard. While the dynamic range of loudness a modern sound system can achieve exceeds the maximum RANGE of objective loudnesses of music (about 85 to 90 db), the ability to reproduce the range of subjective power experienced at live concerts doesn't even come close due to the failure to reproduce the acoustical effects of the hall. This is subjectively dynamic compression any way you look at it. If you want to hear how feeble a symphony orchestra can sound, go to an outdoor summer concert, especially if you can find one which doesn't play in a band shell. It's awful.

In live music played at concert halls, late arriving echoes of one note are heard simultaneously with early arriving echoes and direct sounds of subsequent notes. This creates harmonies and dissonances which are not captured in recordings.

When musicians play a rest at a live performance (stop playing for a moment or two) the echoes from the note just prior to the rest build tension for what will come next. Musicians, especially symphony orchestras must adjust their tempo to the acoustics of venue to allow those echoes to die out to just the right degree before playing the next note to get the full dramatic impact the composer intended. In recordings, the absence of those echoes becomes a discontinuity, ruining the effect entirely. This often comes at the dramatic climax of a major symphonic work, the point the composer has built the entire composition towards.

When a musician plays a note in a live performance, the higher harmonics of that note die out in about a third to a half the time it takes for the fundimental and lower harmonics to die out. This alters the subjective perception of the tone making it mellower, richer without affecting the clarity which the initial transient attack imparts. Clear and mellower, a seeming contradiction to sound engineers.

These are how just some of the distortions even the best electronic sound reproduction systems we have today destroy great music. Small wonder it is dying out. Were it not for that music, personally I wouldn't even see the point at all in owning a high fidelity sound system.

#18 soundminded

soundminded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts

Posted 25 January 2007 - 01:47 PM

>>There are no published references I'm aware of. My
>knoweldge
>>comes predominantly from my own experiments and analysis
>of
>>the problem. Up to this point, I have not found it to be
>of
>>any advantage to me to publish them as this is merely a
>hobby.
>> I have in the past held membership in both AES and ASA
>but I
>>have let them lapse. I'm also not particularly interested
>in
>>discussing our disagreement in this regard at any length,
>I
>>merely wanted to express that a different point of view
>>exists.
>>
>
>Understood. But, without any cogent supporting argument,
>experimental data or cited references, it is just another one
>of the 10^25 audio opinions on the internet. One might just
>as well say,
>
>"Over the years, it has become clear to me that it is
>possible to power a loudspeaker directly off a phono
>cartridge. There are no published references I'm aware of.
>My knoweldge comes predominantly from my own experiments and
>analysis of the problem. Up to this point, I have not found
>it to be of any advantage to me to publish them as this is
>merely a hobby."


I'm not interested in trading library references here. If I were giving a dissertation that might be important. This is an informal internet discussion. It doesn't matter to me where knowledge comes from, it's the knowledge itself that counts. I am offering you an idea which may be new and different to consider and explore. Whether or not you do is up to you, I am not trying to prove any point. The people who publish these papers, and I've read enough of them to know, often do in a laboratory similar things to what I do at home although they usually have far better controlled conditions and better measuring equipment. OTOH, I have equal motivation and better trained hearing, a decided advantage. The other evening I honed it by speding several hours evaluating several violins of no particular distinction which a student was considering for purchase. We all heard the same sounds and had radically different opinions of what we heard and what it meant. Where does that leave measurements? There are a lot of well documented technical papers whose basic premises are wrong, whose mesurement techniques are questionable, whose logic and conclusions are badly flawed, and they are accepted as gospel for years, even decades going unchallenged. Read an 80 page Master's degree thesis by someone named Cheevers proporting a method of evaluating harmonic distortion in audio amplifiers to categorze and characterize them leading to the conclusion that tube amplifiers are better than transistor amplifiers. How many blunders can you find in its logic? Hint, the first one is nearly at the very beginning.


>>I met Peter Snell shortly before he died. This was his
>point
>>of view which made a lot of sense to me and began my
>thinking
>>along entirely different lines than I had previouly been
>>taught. He may not have been the first to look at the
>problem
>>this way, just the first for me.
>
>One of the big problems with the internet is that people who
>are researching a topic for the first time have no good way to
>distinguish expert opinion from lay opinion, or even crank
>opinion. Thus, you and I both have a responsibility to be
>very careful and clear in what we say, since we are the
>Custodians of History. If you go back and read your own post
>about Snell, it read very much as if you were stating a
>historical fact. Thus, I simply asked you to clarify the
>basis for your statement as it was entered into the record.
>Thanks for doing this.

I cited Peter Snell as a well respected physicist who made an interestingt statement which provoked me to think along certain lines I hadn't considered before, that's all. I'm not interested in who gets credit for being first to say it. This is an internet discussion among hobbyists, not a place for formal dissertations to be presented and defended. Pedantism carries no weight with me.


>>Judging from what I could tell from the design of the
>speaker
>>never having actually heard it myself, it appears an
>>improvement over the prior art but I'd expect it falls
>short
>>of achieving the goal. Is there any adjustable provision
>for
>>compensating for the frequency selective nature of the
>room
>>boundary absorption or built in spectral compensation of
>the
>>indirect drivers for the frequency selective
>characteristics
>>of the total power radiated by the direct drivers?
>
>Alas, the design did fall short of its idealized goals. Such
>is the nature of all things. There were provisions for
>equalizing the reverberant spectrum both independently and
>arbitrarily. That's one of the main goals of the design. In
>fact, you can insert any kind of signal processing you want to
>the reverberant field, via a processor loop provided.

I'm not sure I understand why your Magic 1 speaker is any different than just having two speaker systems per channel, one facing forward and another angled backwards with the option of a short time delay and some out of phase signals to the backwards one. It seems to me the basic goal of your speaker is what you call imaging or soundstaging. Little or no consideration seems to have been given to using the indirect speaker for adjusting its timbre. As with much about loudspeakers, that problem is left to the end user who typically has neither the understanding to appreciate the problem or the knowledge to solve it.

>
>>What is the value of a
>>loudspeaker being able to localize the source of a sound
>if
>>the tones it creates bear only passing resemblance to
>those of
>>the musical instruments it is supposed to reproduce. The
>>designers seem completely enthralled with the means, not
>the
>>ends. They don't see the forest for the trees.
>>
>
>Huh? One might just as well say, "What good is the value
>of a speaker that has accurate tonality, if it can't create a
>proper soundstage?" Value is a completely subjective
>matter. Ultimately, if designers made speakers whose value
>was as out of wack with listener's hearing as you suggest,
>they would not thrive. Localization is a very, very important
>part of the listening experience. Trading tonality against
>localization is a false dichotomy, anyway. For example, an
>early reflection will impair tonality as sure as it will
>impair localization. The falacy that tonality is completely
>determined by power response has been disproven by every study
>I am aware of, including AR's own. (eg- Kates, et al.)
>

Here I will have to strongly disagree with you. Tonality is one of the four basic elements of music along with melody, harmony, and rhythm. Soundstaging is not. In fact, it is relatively unimportant. The system of arranging musicians in a symphony orchestra called "The American Seating Plan" is a relatively recent invention and is not necessarily universally adopted or even applicable to other ensembles. The ability to exactly localize the source of individual musical instruments is often difficult when many of them play together, or when you are not in the front row seats. The better seats in a concert hall are often further back. The reverberation of the acoustics which adds so much to musical enjoyment blurs localization.

>
>>I find it hard to belive that LST was more than
>superficially
>>influenced by 901.
>
>OK. And I find it hard to believe that you find it hard to
>believe. On the other hand, my cousin Ida finds it hard to
>believe that I find it hard to believe that you find it hard
>to believe.

Very funny. :-)

>> The design approaches seem radically different.
>
>They were. That's not my point.

You said that LST was influenced by 901. Neither were rectangular prisms, both had angled panels. Both produced bass by an acoustic suspension design. IMO that's about all they had in common, an entirely superficial resemblance.

>> LST's consideration of how it interacts with room
>acoustics
>>is entirely haphazard, left purely to chance.
>
>Not true. Otherwise, the autotransformer would have been left
>out.

The transformer controlled the hf balance of direct firing tweeters only and that is all or am I mistaken. AR LST made no provisions for independent control of reflected sound and its interaction with the listening room. Because of its unusually wide horizontal dispersion of mid and high frequencies, it has greater interaction with room acoustics than speakers with narrow dispersion. This made the optimal listening area greater but it made no provision for adjusting for differences in absorption/reflectivity of reverberant sound indepdently of keeping the direct field flat. Therefore, the setting was at best a compromise, a tradeoff between flat direct field and flat total energy transfer. Having both simultaneously was an impossibility
>
>
>>I have read Dr. Bose's white paper more than once.
>
>I trust by now, you don't move your lips...

I don't have to look up any of the words in the dictionary anymore either.

>
>>It also has some which are
>>ludicrous. The one which stands out most is the
>measurement
>>of 89% reflected sound 19 feet from the performing stage
>of
>>Boston Symphony Hall as justification for a loudspeaker
>>designs which radiates 89% of its energy indirectly
>because
>>its resulting reverberant sound field as it relates to
>its
>>direct field has nothing in common with the corresponding
>>relationships at a live performance.
>
>I fail to see why it is any less, (or more) justifiable than
>the radiation pattern of any other speaker. Advertising not
>withstanding, it is a design decision that will work well with
>some recordings/rooms/listener preferences, and poorly with
>others. Same thing with a dome tweeter, a horn, a dipole,
>etc.

The reasons it is not justifiable AS PRESENTED are many. Here are a few. The implication is that by duplicating the direct/reverberant ratio, you will duplicate the acoustical effects of the concert hall. Carnegie Hall has 225 times the volume of my listening room. The relationships of arrival of reverberanat energy in time, space, and spectral change in a concert hall have nothing in common with what the speaker produces in a home environment. Furthermore, the generation of 89% indirect energy doesn't in any way suggest that the field at the listener will be 89% reflected energy, that depends on many other variables, especially the room acoustics. And there isn't even a way to adjust that ratio. This does not negate the value or clear advantages of the direct/reflecting principle but the justification for it based on the rationalization in the white paper is inane IMO.


>
>>If you speak with your
>>former collegues at Bose, perhaps you will ask them why
>Dr.
>>Bose chose to build his most serious effort at a high
>fidelity
>>loudspeaker without the capability to reproduce most of
>the
>>highest audible octave of sound. It took me 2 1/2 years
>to
>>figure out how to satisfactorily correct the problem, it's
>not
>>quite as straighforward as it might first appear.
>>
>
>
>Too bad Bose didn't purchase your "satisfactory
>correction," or they might not have the burden of being
>the worlds' largest speaker company now! Sheesh, how could
>all those PhD's at Bose have missed it????

Simple, they must be deaf. They are more interested in listening to equipment than to music. While the general public may have accepted 901 for its special properties of creating music not sounding like it came out of a box, audiophiles soon tired of its inability to make recordings of musical instruments sound like the instruments themselves and it became the joke of the high end audio industry. The saying was "no highs, no lows, it must be Bose" was not an accident. Original Bose 901 can produce extraordinarily deep bass given enough amplifier power, but it cannot reproduce most of the top octave of sound. And even if it could, as I said, in its direct field radiation whose precidence establishes the stereophonic effect, its high frequencies would be strictly on axis due to the large diameter of the 4" cone. What I have concluded which I find interesting is that while the human ear is less sensitive to high frequencies than to midrange tones, the use the brain makes of it in judging sound both by its presence or absence and by its quality such as its directions of arrival is very important, far out of proportion to its quantity.


>
>Three other things you overlook:
>
>1- There is nothing sacred about 20KHz, any more than there is
>anything sacred about 20 Hz. Bandlimiting a speaker is
>unavoidable. Where one chooses to do it is purely a matter of
>listener preference.

No it's a matter of musical accuracy within the ability of the listener's hearing. By making it impossible to reproduce the extremes of frequency, a sound system precludes the possibility of reproducing convincingly the subjective tonality of musical instruments. Eliminate the treble and no violin will sound accurate. Too bad, this can be one of the most beautiful sounding istruments ever made. The best of them such as Strads and Guanari are the most expensive instruments which exist, some being called "priceless." When available at auction, they often sell in the millions of dollars. I know someone who refused 2 million dollars for a Guanari del Gesu, not to sell it but to bequeath it. Even most pianos won't sound right and not just in their upper registers. Eliminate the bass and orchestras don't sound right losing much of their power. Basses and Cellos don't sound right. Tuba's don't sound right. Bass drums lose their impact. Pipe organs don't sound right. Pedal notes become completely inaudible. In short, music sounds thin, loses its richness.


>2- There are plenty of 4.5" drivers with output above 15
>KHz.

Not off axis. And how many of them can also play flat down to 30 hz? At the current state of the art of material science, the physical strength of he cone to produce bass increases inertial mass to the point where it is too great to produce extreme treble unless maximum output is very limited as in a headphone driver. And no matter what, dispersion is a function of physical size and is awful even if output is possible.

>3- Can you hear above 8 KHz?

Easily :-) I have carefully potected my hearing by avoiding exposure to very loud sounds. I have never gone to a live rock concert or to a disco. I find sound at those levels painful. When I first started work at a steel mill with a group of trainees, others laughed at me for demanding ear protection. Now I can still hear, they probably cannot hear well if they can still hear at all.



>>If the shortcomings of much modern loudspeaker and sound
>>system design which includes their lack of provision to
>>mitigate differences in the acoustics of the rooms they
>are
>>placed in and their lack of provision to mitigate
>differences
>>in the way recordings are made resulting in
>unsatisfactory
>>subjective timbral accuracy, their inability to reproduce
>the
>>effects of concert hall acoustics is orders of magnitude
>>worse. The importance of this is demonstrated by the
>>willingness of both municipalities and private groups to
>>expend many tens of millions of dollars building concert
>>halls, the expenditure of many millions more to
>>"tweak" them, and unfortunately the often less
>than
>>satisfactory results all this money, time, and effort
>>achieves. Dr. Bose's major contribution to my
>understanding
>>is that those acoustical effects represent almost the
>entirety
>>of what is heard in live music. The present state of the
>art
>>for those who design sound systems to record and
>reproduce
>>live music leaves them far short of the knowledge and
>>techniques for recording it or reproducing it. This was
>>brought home in a rare frank admission last summer by the
>>editors and reviewerers of TAD audio hobbyist magazine
>who
>>were in agreement that the best audio reproduction
>equipment
>>they had access to was rarely if ever convincing. This
>hardly
>>comes as a surprise to concergoers who also enjoy
>recordings
>>at home. It won't IMO get any better until the problem
>is
>>completly rethought from the ground up, the present
>paradyme
>>having been exploited to its fullest potential a long
>time
>>ago.
>
>
>What I can understand of this paragraph, I agree with. I will
>say, however, that reproducing concert halls and acoustic
>instruments has become substantially irrelevant to the audio
>industry. The epoch of "classical music" is over.
>Personally, only about 3% of my media is music from before
>1900, and suspect that is more than average.
>
>-k
>
>kkantor.spaces.live.com


Sadly, you are probably right about classical music. There are many possible contributing reasons but one of them which should not be overlooked is industry's complete failure to develop the technology to reproduce the beauty of its sound. The best equipment even today renders a pale immitation of what real classical music sounds like. Every serious concertgoer in the world knows it and accepts it. It's basically the result of an engineering failure. With the perfection of solid state electronics and the digital compact discs, engineers solved the problem of storing, retrieving, and amplifiying electrical signals analogous to music. But they completely failed to solve the problem of music reproduction. Their approach was dead wrong. That approach legitimately starts with study and understanding of how musical instruments generate and propagate sound, how the sound interacts with large and small rooms, and how the sound fields which reach the listeners are characterized. Speaker engineers and sound system engineers have done none of that as is obvious from their designs. Woofers and tweeters are the last part of looking for the solution to the problem, not the first.

#19 kkantor

kkantor

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 761 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 25 January 2007 - 04:52 AM

>There are no published references I'm aware of. My knoweldge
>comes predominantly from my own experiments and analysis of
>the problem. Up to this point, I have not found it to be of
>any advantage to me to publish them as this is merely a hobby.
> I have in the past held membership in both AES and ASA but I
>have let them lapse. I'm also not particularly interested in
>discussing our disagreement in this regard at any length, I
>merely wanted to express that a different point of view
>exists.
>

Understood. But, without any cogent supporting argument, experimental data or cited references, it is just another one of the 10^25 audio opinions on the internet. One might just as well say,

"Over the years, it has become clear to me that it is possible to power a loudspeaker directly off a phono cartridge. There are no published references I'm aware of. My knoweldge comes predominantly from my own experiments and analysis of the problem. Up to this point, I have not found it to be of any advantage to me to publish them as this is merely a hobby."


>I met Peter Snell shortly before he died. This was his point
>of view which made a lot of sense to me and began my thinking
>along entirely different lines than I had previouly been
>taught. He may not have been the first to look at the problem
>this way, just the first for me.

One of the big problems with the internet is that people who are researching a topic for the first time have no good way to distinguish expert opinion from lay opinion, or even crank opinion. Thus, you and I both have a responsibility to be very careful and clear in what we say, since we are the Custodians of History. If you go back and read your own post about Snell, it read very much as if you were stating a historical fact. Thus, I simply asked you to clarify the basis for your statement as it was entered into the record. Thanks for doing this.


>Judging from what I could tell from the design of the speaker
>never having actually heard it myself, it appears an
>improvement over the prior art but I'd expect it falls short
>of achieving the goal. Is there any adjustable provision for
>compensating for the frequency selective nature of the room
>boundary absorption or built in spectral compensation of the
>indirect drivers for the frequency selective characteristics
>of the total power radiated by the direct drivers?

Alas, the design did fall short of its idealized goals. Such is the nature of all things. There were provisions for equalizing the reverberant spectrum both independently and arbitrarily. That's one of the main goals of the design. In fact, you can insert any kind of signal processing you want to the reverberant field, via a processor loop provided.


>What is the value of a
>loudspeaker being able to localize the source of a sound if
>the tones it creates bear only passing resemblance to those of
>the musical instruments it is supposed to reproduce. The
>designers seem completely enthralled with the means, not the
>ends. They don't see the forest for the trees.
>

Huh? One might just as well say, "What good is the value of a speaker that has accurate tonality, if it can't create a proper soundstage?" Value is a completely subjective matter. Ultimately, if designers made speakers whose value was as out of wack with listener's hearing as you suggest, they would not thrive. Localization is a very, very important part of the listening experience. Trading tonality against localization is a false dichotomy, anyway. For example, an early reflection will impair tonality as sure as it will impair localization. The falacy that tonality is completely determined by power response has been disproven by every study I am aware of, including AR's own. (eg- Kates, et al.)


>I find it hard to belive that LST was more than superficially
>influenced by 901.

OK. And I find it hard to believe that you find it hard to believe. On the other hand, my cousin Ida finds it hard to believe that I find it hard to believe that you find it hard to believe.


> The design approaches seem radically different.

They were. That's not my point.


> LST's consideration of how it interacts with room acoustics
>is entirely haphazard, left purely to chance.

Not true. Otherwise, the autotransformer would have been left out.


>I have read Dr. Bose's white paper more than once.

I trust by now, you don't move your lips...


>It also has some which are
>ludicrous. The one which stands out most is the measurement
>of 89% reflected sound 19 feet from the performing stage of
>Boston Symphony Hall as justification for a loudspeaker
>designs which radiates 89% of its energy indirectly because
>its resulting reverberant sound field as it relates to its
>direct field has nothing in common with the corresponding
>relationships at a live performance.

I fail to see why it is any less, (or more) justifiable than the radiation pattern of any other speaker. Advertising not withstanding, it is a design decision that will work well with some recordings/rooms/listener preferences, and poorly with others. Same thing with a dome tweeter, a horn, a dipole, etc.


>If you speak with your
>former collegues at Bose, perhaps you will ask them why Dr.
>Bose chose to build his most serious effort at a high fidelity
>loudspeaker without the capability to reproduce most of the
>highest audible octave of sound. It took me 2 1/2 years to
>figure out how to satisfactorily correct the problem, it's not
>quite as straighforward as it might first appear.
>


Too bad Bose didn't purchase your "satisfactory correction," or they might not have the burden of being the worlds' largest speaker company now! Sheesh, how could all those PhD's at Bose have missed it????

Three other things you overlook:

1- There is nothing sacred about 20KHz, any more than there is anything sacred about 20 Hz. Bandlimiting a speaker is unavoidable. Where one chooses to do it is purely a matter of listener preference.

2- There are plenty of 4.5" drivers with output above 15 KHz.

3- Can you hear above 8 KHz?


>If the shortcomings of much modern loudspeaker and sound
>system design which includes their lack of provision to
>mitigate differences in the acoustics of the rooms they are
>placed in and their lack of provision to mitigate differences
>in the way recordings are made resulting in unsatisfactory
>subjective timbral accuracy, their inability to reproduce the
>effects of concert hall acoustics is orders of magnitude
>worse. The importance of this is demonstrated by the
>willingness of both municipalities and private groups to
>expend many tens of millions of dollars building concert
>halls, the expenditure of many millions more to
>"tweak" them, and unfortunately the often less than
>satisfactory results all this money, time, and effort
>achieves. Dr. Bose's major contribution to my understanding
>is that those acoustical effects represent almost the entirety
>of what is heard in live music. The present state of the art
>for those who design sound systems to record and reproduce
>live music leaves them far short of the knowledge and
>techniques for recording it or reproducing it. This was
>brought home in a rare frank admission last summer by the
>editors and reviewerers of TAD audio hobbyist magazine who
>were in agreement that the best audio reproduction equipment
>they had access to was rarely if ever convincing. This hardly
>comes as a surprise to concergoers who also enjoy recordings
>at home. It won't IMO get any better until the problem is
>completly rethought from the ground up, the present paradyme
>having been exploited to its fullest potential a long time
>ago.


What I can understand of this paragraph, I agree with. I will say, however, that reproducing concert halls and acoustic instruments has become substantially irrelevant to the audio industry. The epoch of "classical music" is over. Personally, only about 3% of my media is music from before 1900, and suspect that is more than average.

-k

kkantor.spaces.live.com

#20 roundhome

roundhome

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 311 posts

Posted 22 January 2007 - 04:38 PM

>Hello Mr Kantor always good to have you on here.
>
>I for one would like to see a sonic signature. Like Bose dose
>with there refletion graphics showing where the sound goes,
>with the LST and the Mgc-1. Except were Bose can't show
>seperate paterens for Highs, mids and lower ranges these two
>can. I have listened to the Bose and LST, but have not been
>lucky enough to listen to Mgc-1.
>One Question. What problem was the Mgc-1 trying to solve that
>the LST and AR9 did not address?
>Thank you
>Jim
Sorry I just found the one on the Mgc-1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users