94 replies to this topic

[soundminded]

>I don't agree. In my research and experience, high frequencies
>are the easiet to get right, on first arrival. Can you
>suggest some references for me to read? This has been a
>primary topic of my professional life for 25+ years. I'm
>REALLY intested to learn any errors in my thinking. (Not
>asking for you explaination, or a debate. Just some reference
>I can digest.)

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.


>Why do you attribute this contribution to Snell? Snell wasn't
>even founded till 1976, or so.

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.


>That goal is EXACTLY what the AR MGC-1 attempted to achieve.

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?


>Here's what the NY Times published in (oy) 1985:
>
>http://kkantor.space...7C11!1572.entry.
>
>and here's an article I wrote on the topic. You might be
>interested in the references:
>
>http://www.aural.org...gic_speaker.pdf.
>
>I'll see if I can get the AES's permission to post a paper
>Alex deKoster and I did on the subject:
>
>> Volume 34 Number 12 pp. 990-996; December 1986
>>
>> The psychoacoustic issues relevant to loudspeaker design
>are
>> reviewed. These issues are discussed as they relate to
>the
>> perceived spectral balance, transient response,
>localization, and
>> spatial characteristics of consumer loudspeakers. A
>loudspeaker
>> design deriving from acoustic and psychoacoustic
>considerations is
>> presented. The design achieves spatial and temporal
>control of
>> the sound radiation and incorporates signal processing
>> electronics. The design is shown to be justified using
>both
>> subjective and objective testing.
>>
>> Authors: Kantor, Kenneth L.; de Koster, Alexander P.
>>
>> E-lib Location: (CD aes4) /jrnl7888/1986/8146.pdf



Again the eternal bugaboo about "imagaing" and source localization. The issues which keep cropping up in this regard to loudspeaker designs are not only of secondary importance to what should IMO be of primary concern, accurate subjective timbral reproduction of musical instruments, they are multiplied thousands of fold by the same variables in live musical performances. IMO, the issues of greatest concern to modern speaker designers miss the mark while those I consider critical are given a little lip service and no real importance as evidenced by their designs. 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.


>Having been there, (both Bose and AR), shortly after the LST's
>release I'm explaining a situation whereby the LST was very
>probably influenced by the 901. I'm not interested in
>debating you, but will be happy to discuss this topic if you
>would like to learn more.

I find it hard to belive that LST was more than superficially influenced by 901. Even their physical appearance is comparable in only the most oblique ways. Perhaps 901 got AR engineers thinking about geometrical radiating patterns of loudspeakers but that's about where the similarity ends as far as I can see. The design approaches seem radically different. LST's consideration of how it interacts with room acoustics is entirely haphazard, left purely to chance. 901 has given far greater thought to it but among its shortcomings is its lack of provision to adjust the direct/reflected radiating ratio to compensate for different degrees of nearby boundary absorption. Moving the speaker closer or further from the reflecting wall is insufficient means as that affects other important parameters at the same time.

>
>Incidentally, I studied with Bose, as well as doing various
>design projects for his company. He is an extremely competent
>acoustician and loudspeaker designer. Sure, I had
>disagreements with him, but to dismiss his understanding of
>loudspeakers is simply foolish.


I have read Dr. Bose's white paper more than once. It has much useful information and many interesting ideas including some which are highly innovative. 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. 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.

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.

[roundhome]

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

[kkantor]

>Flat first arrival response is very important. The principal
>limitation of most loudspeakers in meeting this criteria
>is....high frequency radiation.

I don't agree. In my research and experience, high frequencies are the easiet to get right, on first arrival. Can you suggest some references for me to read? This has been a primary topic of my professional life for 25+ years. I'm REALLY intested to learn any errors in my thinking. (Not asking for you explaination, or a debate. Just some reference I can digest.)


>Flat total spectral transfer at the listener's location which
>was Peter Snell's observation and IMO his most important
>contribution, and not flat power radiated is also of critical
>importance. The difference is that flat spectral transfer
>must take into account the acoustic energy
>reflection/absorption as a function of frequency of the room
>boundaries and the radiating properties of the speakers
>themselves and must compensate for them. The principal
>limitation of most loudspeakers in meeting this criteria
>is....also high frequency radiation.

Why do you attribute this contribution to Snell? Snell wasn't even founded till 1976, or so.

>
>I have been modifying my speakers with the goal of achieving
>both simultaneously. And as a result, they sound remarkably
>alike even though they didn't start out that way. They also
>sound a lot like live music. I am most fortunate to have real
>musical instruments to compare them to directly.

That goal is EXACTLY what the AR MGC-1 attempted to achieve. Here's what the NY Times published in (oy) 1985:

http://kkantor.space...7C11!1572.entry.

and here's an article I wrote on the topic. You might be interested in the references:

http://www.aural.org...gic_speaker.pdf.

I'll see if I can get the AES's permission to post a paper Alex deKoster and I did on the subject:

> Volume 34 Number 12 pp. 990-996; December 1986
>
> The psychoacoustic issues relevant to loudspeaker design are
> reviewed. These issues are discussed as they relate to the
> perceived spectral balance, transient response, localization, and
> spatial characteristics of consumer loudspeakers. A loudspeaker
> design deriving from acoustic and psychoacoustic considerations is
> presented. The design achieves spatial and temporal control of
> the sound radiation and incorporates signal processing
> electronics. The design is shown to be justified using both
> subjective and objective testing.
>
> Authors: Kantor, Kenneth L.; de Koster, Alexander P.
>
> E-lib Location: (CD aes4) /jrnl7888/1986/8146.pdf



>The resemblance visually is superficial. Acoustically, each
>had its strengths and shortcomings which were different from
>each other. 901 has NO appreciable response above around 10
>to 12 khz. Front high frequency radiation with the first
>arrival is what you would expect from a 4" driver, what
>little of it is there is stricty on axis. A 4" dynamic
>driver as a tweeter is worthless. This cannot be corrected
>with further equalization because the cone's inertial mass is
>too great and the dispersion is a function of its size.
>Reflected high frequency radiation from the rear cannot
>compensate for it either. Interestingly, if you try to
>provide enhanced hf output from the rear only, you get a very
>strange acoustic phemonenon which is clearly audible on
>sibilant parts of speech and with some music. It sounds like
>an effect you get from a phaser/flanger used for sound effects
>with electronic musical instruments. 901 also has an
>objectionable upper bass/lower midrange peak in many
>installation situations. Today, this is easily correctable
>but in 1967 it wasn't. On the other hand, 901 has no
>crossover problems because it doesn't have a crossover
>network. Both are capable of excellent very low frequency, low
>distortion bass when sufficient power is available and both
>can benefit significantly from further LF equalization but
>901s power requirements to achieve its full potential is
>monumental, practically without equal in any other speaker I
>know of. It would take around 2 to 4 pairs and about 500 to
>1000 wpc to achieve bass response a pair of AR9 can deliver
>with a 60 wpc amplifier. 901 also does not radiate as a
>virtual point source. 901 doesn't sound like music coming out
>of a box. This may explain why 901 like panel speakers,
>especially bi-polar panels are so popular. The desire for
>speakers which produce sound coming from a source beyond its
>own limited physical size is apparantly very important to many
>listeners. This was one reason Bose 901 was so popular and
>why so many audiophiles and manufacturers today prize what
>they call "imaging" even to the point of sacrificing
>timbral accuracy. I suppose that doesn't matter if you don't
>know or care what acoustical instruments really sound like.
>BTW, my comments about 901 refer to the original and series 2
>which used the CTS acoustic suspension drivers only. As I see
>it, that was their one true serious effort at a high fidelity
>loudspeaker, warts and all.

Having been there, (both Bose and AR), shortly after the LST's release I'm explaining a situation whereby the LST was very probably influenced by the 901. I'm not interested in debating you, but will be happy to discuss this topic if you would like to learn more.

Incidentally, I studied with Bose, as well as doing various design projects for his company. He is an extremely competent acoustician and loudspeaker designer. Sure, I had disagreements with him, but to dismiss his understanding of loudspeakers is simply foolish.

-k

http://kkantor.spaces.live.com

[soundminded]

>I'm am going to come close to breaking my New Year's>The LST's are basically the evil-twin of one of my other
>all-time fav's: the Quad ESL. The LST's sacrificed
>everything in favor of Flat Power Response. The Quads
>sacrificed everything in favor of Flat First-Arrival Response.
> Each was uncompromising in its approach, for both better and
>worse.

Flat first arrival response is very important. The principal limitation of most loudspeakers in meeting this criteria is....high frequency radiation.

Flat total spectral transfer at the listener's location which was Peter Snell's observation and IMO his most important contribution, and not flat power radiated is also of critical importance. The difference is that flat spectral transfer must take into account the acoustic energy reflection/absorption as a function of frequency of the room boundaries and the radiating properties of the speakers themselves and must compensate for them. The principal limitation of most loudspeakers in meeting this criteria is....also high frequency radiation.

I have been modifying my speakers with the goal of achieving both simultaneously. And as a result, they sound remarkably alike even though they didn't start out that way. They also sound a lot like live music. I am most fortunate to have real musical instruments to compare them to directly.

>Now I am going to get myself into real trouble...
>
>It's always been hard for me to ignore the influence of the
>Bose 901 on AR's decision to make the LST. The 901, and its
>striking appearance, was having a big impact on the company's
>dealer and customer base at the time of the LST's
>introduction. This is not meant to discount the LST's quality
>or innovation, as it contained more than its fair share of
>both.

The resemblance visually is superficial. Acoustically, each had its strengths and shortcomings which were different from each other. 901 has NO appreciable response above around 10 to 12 khz. Front high frequency radiation with the first arrival is what you would expect from a 4" driver, what little of it is there is stricty on axis. A 4" dynamic driver as a tweeter is worthless. This cannot be corrected with further equalization because the cone's inertial mass is too great and the dispersion is a function of its size. Reflected high frequency radiation from the rear cannot compensate for it either. Interestingly, if you try to provide enhanced hf output from the rear only, you get a very strange acoustic phemonenon which is clearly audible on sibilant parts of speech and with some music. It sounds like an effect you get from a phaser/flanger used for sound effects with electronic musical instruments. 901 also has an objectionable upper bass/lower midrange peak in many installation situations. Today, this is easily correctable but in 1967 it wasn't. On the other hand, 901 has no crossover problems because it doesn't have a crossover network. Both are capable of excellent very low frequency, low distortion bass when sufficient power is available and both can benefit significantly from further LF equalization but 901s power requirements to achieve its full potential is monumental, practically without equal in any other speaker I know of. It would take around 2 to 4 pairs and about 500 to 1000 wpc to achieve bass response a pair of AR9 can deliver with a 60 wpc amplifier. 901 also does not radiate as a virtual point source. 901 doesn't sound like music coming out of a box. This may explain why 901 like panel speakers, especially bi-polar panels are so popular. The desire for speakers which produce sound coming from a source beyond its own limited physical size is apparantly very important to many listeners. This was one reason Bose 901 was so popular and why so many audiophiles and manufacturers today prize what they call "imaging" even to the point of sacrificing timbral accuracy. I suppose that doesn't matter if you don't know or care what acoustical instruments really sound like. BTW, my comments about 901 refer to the original and series 2 which used the CTS acoustic suspension drivers only. As I see it, that was their one true serious effort at a high fidelity loudspeaker, warts and all.

[Carlspeak]

Ken, I loved your 1999 ...."wire we're here" blog at your link. Right on about the snake oil of speaker wire marketing.


It's all about the music

Carl
Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

[kkantor]

I'm am going to come close to breaking my New Year's Resolution not to offer my personal opinions about loudspeakers on line....

I lived with the LST's as my primary speakers for several years. (Actually, it was the repeated trips to AR's Service Counter for replacement tweeters and fuses, borrowing my roomate's car, that got my my first factory tour.)

The LST's are basically the evil-twin of one of my other all-time fav's: the Quad ESL. The LST's sacrificed everything in favor of Flat Power Response. The Quads sacrificed everything in favor of Flat First-Arrival Response. Each was uncompromising in its approach, for both better and worse.

Now I am going to get myself into real trouble...

It's always been hard for me to ignore the influence of the Bose 901 on AR's decision to make the LST. The 901, and its striking appearance, was having a big impact on the company's dealer and customer base at the time of the LST's introduction. This is not meant to discount the LST's quality or innovation, as it contained more than its fair share of both.

-k

http://kkantor.spaces.live.com

[onplane]

>1-17-07
>
>P.S. Keep your AR-LST’s as original as possible.
>Frank Marsi, my friend.
>

Hi, Frank!

I well understand your desire to stay with the original design. Nevertheless, just wanted to mention that for the past 6 months I have been passively bi-amping my AR-3a's and they sound just terrific! Better, in my opinion, than they did 35 years ago.

I further believe that most of the improvement is due to the amps just having a much simpler/easier task to do ... and consequently, do it better!

If the AR-3a woofer "load's" an amp, just imagine how all the drivers in your LST's load your amps. I would seriously recommend a bi-amp "experiment" on the LST's.

I believe the benefits would be:

1. Even better/tighter base
2. Far, far more resolution and control over the mids/highs


Bi-amping the LST's is more difficult than bi-amping the AR-3's, because the LST's lack that 3rd terminal (one labeled "T"). This means a lot more work, but I believe the benefits would be even greater on the LST's.

In short, the additional effort would be well rewarded.


Regards,
Jerry

[frankmarsi]

1-17-07
Here’s my 4 cents, I own AR-3as’, AR-2ax’s and AR-LST’s.
The 3a’s are wonderful and still my most comfortable speaker to my ears, I find the 2ax’s are a little mid- top-end shy, while at the same time they can be slightly ‘boomy’ if the amp bass controls are not used judiciously.
The AR-LST strongly carries the AR signature sound over-all, but offers at times, an over abundance of mid-range information, which is great for female voices, bass being the same as the 3a’s- the best in the world.
There I did it, I said it, I spoke of the main AR speaker line in five sentences or less.
Frank Marsi, your friend.

P.S. Keep your AR-LST’s as original as possible. I realize the high end driver is the most difficult to maintain, but there are alternatives out there. These speakers are only worth their salt in their original state and quickly lose value when altered. Besides why would anyone want to change this veritable classic of all times? I’m extremely grateful that I even have mine!
Frank Marsi, my friend.

[KlausDK]

Hi cdumbumb

You should definitely refoam your woofers, you will have a hard time to find a replacement speaker of the same quality and fit for any of the drivers in an AR-LST. The "potmeter" is a 6 position switch, so it might not be stuck at all, nmaybe you just have to try to turn a little harder. Properly restored, it is a speaker like almost no other speaker in this world, but they need to be positioned close up against a wall with some distance to the floor, in order to give a proper respons in the low register.

Good luck with the restoration, it is worth every minute it lasts.
Klaus

[administrator]

After coming back from a long weekend and having been emailed complaints and seeing some bogus accounts created I'm going to lock this thread.

As many of you know I'm often an AWOL landlord here due to my full-time job. My attention to the forums isn't likely to change in the near future and I'm not a big fan of strict moderation, so maybe I can implement a compromise... a user based moderation system like Slashdot. Also known as a crap filter.

Anyway, everyone take a deep breath and let's not scare away all the classic AR fans!

Mark

[soundminded]

>My mistake. I meant to say AudioKarma and Audio -Asylum-.
>That must have been a Freudian Slip on my part. (Too much
>time at the hospital this week, you know?)
>
>I was sitting in the 8th or 9th row of a solo guitar
>performance of Segovia a few years ago. Very moving; it was
>one of his last.


It must have been, he died in 1987. I heard him live at Carnegie Hall in the late 1960s. As was typical at his concerts, the house was packed, must have been over 2000 people there. He was the most famous guitar player in the world. I had a good seat, around row L or M in the center. (K is reserved for professional critics.) I was proably around 35 to 45 feet away. I figure this allows around 2 1/2 feet per row, 8 to 10 feet for the apron at the front of the stage, and 5 to 10 feet for the aisle in front of the front row. If you heard him in a concert hall you were probably about 10 or 15 feet closer than I was.


>It was easy to hear independently, the
>sounds made by each hand. Thus, I could hear sublte tempos in
>the counterpoint in a way that would be blurred or inaudible
>if their locational images overlapped, without the benefit of
>spatial unmasking in playback.


I have to admit I really don't know what you are talking about. A guitar is played by pressing the fingers of the left hand against the strings holding them to the frets on the fingerboard and plucking or strumming the strings with the right hand. The sound comes from the vibrating strings themselves, from the resonant cavity of the box as sound emerges through the hole below the strings and directly from vibrations of the box itself. Any spurious sound due to the left hand such as by the fingers sliding along the strings or accidently plucking them will still come from the same sources. How do you account for a difference in the perceived location of the source of sound between what the left and right hand were doing and what was the left hand doing which made sound anyway. BTW, even at 25 feet, the distance between them, usually about a foot or so is only a few degrees. If you can make that distinction in source localization you have much better hearing than I probably have.

>
>In other words, localization is not just about hearing spatial
>features in the sound. It is also important in that it
>permits the two ears to function as an array, which gives up
>to 6 dB additional hearing acuity for softer sounds in the
>presence of loud ones.
>
>(If you ponder it, you might also come to realize that this
>explains why dichotic-monophonic sounds [ie- two-speaker mono]
>does not sound identical to a mono speaker.)
>
>Doctor Philharmonic


Having a sound from one instrument at stage center reproduced by two loudspeakers playing at equal loudness spaced several feet apart to create an illusory phantom center channel has always struck me as one of the shortcomings of two channel stereo. I also believe the ear/brain combination functions as a direction finding dipole array which makes judgements about the size and nature of sound by the way intensity increases in one ear and decreases in the other as the head is turned slightly. When all of the sound, especially high frequencies comes from the same direction because this "angular gradient" is high, IMO the brain judges it as a small source. At the opposite extreme, when moving your head makes no change in intensity in either ear, your brain concludes it is coming from nowhere in particular as I explained to Roundhome when I discussed binaural recordings. I've tried to overcome the shrillness which often comes from hi fi speakers exploring this assumption. I've also tried to improve the size of the listening area where you can get the best enjoyment from recordings. I don't like having to sit where X marks the spot.

>
>"Who let him out of his cage, John?"
>
>
>
>Here's one of the nicer posts from AudioKarma:
>
>Re: My favorite was the 3a - Soundmind 18:50:41 02/04/05 (5)
>
>With careful location within my room, additional tweeters, and
>equalization based on years of tweaking and a lifetime of
>critical listening, my AR9s sound superb to me. If it's on the
>disc, I will hear it...or feel it. Even with a 60 wpc (very
>fine) amplifier, deep bass is a seismic event. Highs soar and
>sparkle. Predominantly midrange sounds like human voices seem
>like they are right in front of me. Musical instruments on
>most recordings sound exactly like they should and I've
>certainly heard enough of them in my life to know what they
>sound like. The uniquely peculair sound of my recently
>acquired Steinway M piano and the one recording I found that
>reminded me so strongly of it sound virtually identical, one
>at one end of the room, the other coming from the other end.
>And every instrument including cellos and double basses are
>right there. Rostropovich playing the Dvorak Cello Concerto on
>DG, one of my very favorite recordings could hardly be more
>beautiful had he come for dinner and given me a private
>concert between Cognacs. Sorry if yours disappoints. I'm sure
>there is a waiting market which would pay handsomely for it no
>matter what condition it's in if you still have them.
>
>


This just goes to show that I'm likely to write almost anything after a good bottle of wine. That was shortly after that Steinway was moved from my aunt's house to mine (she swore a conspiracy of her neighbors were out to steal it, she's now 97.) It's been fun trying to get the AR9s to sound like the Steinway, they are at opposite ends of the same room. And on some recordings they do a pretty good job but because of the difference in the way they radiate sound and therefore the way it interacts with the room, you can still tell the difference, even when the timbre seems exactly the same. It's still very good though. Amazing how much bass it takes to duplicate the lower registers of a real piano. Everything must be in perfect proportion. I'm trying to learn to distinguish different piano manufacturers products by sound alone. I also own two Baldwins. I bought these speakers as a fluke, I wasn't out to buy anything at that time. It's a long story. I didn't particularly like them for the first five or six years I owned them. There was nothing I tried which made them sound right. After visiting an audio show and seeing what some manufacturers were doing with indirect firing tweeters, I figured I had nothing to lose except maybe blowing up an amplifier or two by adding them. But I didn't stop at one pair. I just kept going and going and going. It usually takes me about 2 to 3 years between adjusting the the radiating pattern and fiddling with an equalizer to make a speaker sound "right" to my ears. Funny, adjusting a 5 band equalizer for differences in recordings usually only takes a few seconds to a few minutes to make satisfactory adjustments. As of now, my AR9s are the most accurate speakers on the largest number of recordings I've ever heard. About a year ago, I threw a few switches and disconnected a few wires to restore them to their "factory" sound for the first time in around 15 years. I didn't keep them that way for long. I also heard a fairly large number of high end speakers at the VTV trade show in Piscataway last May, at a Harvey Radio outlet which recently opened near me, and at a couple of audiphile's houses. I have not been impressed by most of them. The only one I liked was called Opera Tibaldi which had 4 indirect firing tweeters. Sounded in the same vein as mine but not as good IMO. I think it costs about $17,000 Biggest disappointment was the A/N top of the line speakers with his own TOTL vacuum tube electronics, cd player, and record player. I heard it play one of my own recordings. Marian McPartland at Maybeck. The most striking defect was that she sounded like she'd suffered a lifetime debilitation resulting from polio in her left arm. Octaves 2 and 3 were very weak. Price for the system was about $500,000. I wouldn't trade for that either.


Mid Fi is what we call the other guy's very expensive equipment that we don't like.

[soundminded]

>Hey Soundminded,
>
>Are you related to the guy who has posted the same boring
>message over and over again, for years, on Audio Xpress and
>AudioKarma? That guy calls himself, "Soundmind."
>He babbles incessantly about how stupid all other speaker
>designers are. How imaging is pointless. How his own
>speakers are the only ones that sound like real instruments.
>He's a bona fide internet nutcase. Strangely, he often jumps
>in on threads involving NHT and Kantor.
>
>Nah, that wouldn't be you.
>
>Dr. Philharmonic
>
>"Music is like food. If it isn't dead, don't listen to
>it."
>
>
>


Sorry to disappoint you. I have never posted on Audo Xpress, in fact I've never even visited that site. I haven't posted on audio Kharma for many years and never about speaker imaging. Anyone who has read my posts here knows my views about speakers. My reference is live musical insturments I have in my own home and live concerts I've attended as best as I can remember them. I've tried to understand why speakers don't sound like them to me and I've tried to modify a number of different pairs to make them sound like real instruments and not coincidently like each other. I've designed different kinds of sound systems which are intended to recreate a live experience by reproducing concert hall acoustics by synthesizing them electroacoustically. Since nobody can hear the other guy's equipment on the internet, nobody knows if they'd agree or disagree with anyone elses' claimed success so making those claims is for the most part pointless. As for imaging, I have never seen what possible difference it could make if the trombone player sits 8 feet to the left of the tuba player or 5 feet to the left of him or nine feet to the right of him or two feet in front of him or two feet in back of him. OTOH, I if recordings of trombones don't sound like real trombones and if recordings of tubas don't sound like real tubas, that's not high fidelity in my book. But to others, whatever floats your boat.

[joelongwood]

Moderator......PLEASE close this thread, as it's fairly obvious it has degenerated into personal attacks and useless information, with many futile and juvenile attempts at clever sarcasm. This type of behavior (IMHO) is not warranted on this site, which is usually civil and very informative. As James (draftingmonkey) correctly pointed out, only a few people have actually attempted to answer the original poster's question regarding his LST's. BTW......the original poster has not been heard from since his first post......is it any wonder?

[dynaco_dan]

Hi there;

I was laughing at these last few posts.

Are you related to our main man, Frank?

Are you Frank in disguise?

He has the most creative sense of humour on this site.

James has given very good advice, just to stay on the original topic.