AR LST speakers
Posted 28 January 2007 - 01:44 AM
To my utter astonishment his soft doe like eyes flickered open, and his barely audible whisper was heard to (m)utter "where's...... where's my.... w h e r e's my trumpet, I, I, I-m u s t-b l o w-m y-t r u u u u m p e t........". Praise the Lord! These woofers do indeed work miracles! Within a matter of hours, he was back to his usual giggly self. Needless to say I have since revised my opinion on the source of innovative and/or accepted wisdom being strictly the prerogative of pros. Such narrow minded thinking would have denied the brilliance of, let me think now, say - the eminent amateur [a href = "http://books.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,1993741,00.html"] Thomas Young [/a] .
The most important thing is that Ken will now be able to accept the Nobel Prize in Speakerology, in person and not as a stiff, as is befitting of one so great.
Groove On Brothers!
"Don't Enjoy The non-Popular Music!"
Posted 28 January 2007 - 01:38 AM
>before but I just bought two AR LST speakers from a flea
>market seem intact one woofer needs new foam but or complete
>the pots are frozen but other than that seem in good condition
>. I was thinking about refoaming them or trying to find proper
>replacement parts I am new to this and am looking for any
>suggestions on what I should do . My plans when i first got
>them was to modernize them but after reading up on them I
>think they should be kept original cabinents or in very good
>shape and speaker grilles in great shape except one frame is
>cracked but cloth undamaged , any suggestions would we of
Seems as if the original post has been forgotten. Read thru all 82 (before mine) posts and can only find 2 that address the question that I can remember by the time I got to the end. So in reply to the ORIGINAL post, if possible I try to keep my vintage speakers as close to original as possible. That is MY personal preference. Refoam where needed, mend the broken grill frame if possible, recap if necessary, clean the pots if you can (plenty of info in the forum about pot cleaning), if not replace and then sit back and enjoy the music.
Posted 28 January 2007 - 12:52 AM
Posted 28 January 2007 - 12:38 AM
Thank you for pointing that out, I just went back to see.
I would never have noticed that very slight difference in your name.
Obviously everyone has to be real careful now if a name can be mis-read by such an extremely small detail.
Maybe that newer, "soundminded_", might start praising you or Ken. lol
Posted 28 January 2007 - 12:20 AM
out of it, better than Seinfeld! ...
Pass the popcorn please!
One minute it's please design us a new tweeter, the next ...
Posted 28 January 2007 - 12:18 AM
Name Johannes Desilentio
Posted 28 January 2007 - 12:13 AM
I don't want anyone to leave, and really I like the other place for amplifier discussions since the speaker section is not so well focused. But it is an alternative, better than loosing people completely.
Nice to hear from you Vern!
Posted 28 January 2007 - 12:12 AM
Posted 28 January 2007 - 12:09 AM
Posted 28 January 2007 - 12:04 AM
Posted 27 January 2007 - 11:55 PM
Posted 27 January 2007 - 11:51 PM
Posted 27 January 2007 - 11:50 PM
A well chosen and truthful write-up, thank you.
I for one do not want anyone to leave this site but to continue to contribute.
Posted 27 January 2007 - 11:23 PM
It is said people do not value what they do not pay for, and it is so very true here. Do you really think that professionals are going to continue to visit? A few here spoil it for the entire board.
Ken, I find this board to be moderated so that this sort of thing is not allowed, it is a pleasant place:
I think this sort of interaction is an interesting reflection on the sad state of our culture.
Posted 27 January 2007 - 11:23 PM
You are a one man peanut gallery, tossing water ballons at everyone form John Cage to John Atkinson, Stereophile to Car Audio. Then you jump out of the ring when someone like Kantor politely asks for references or discussion.
What you REALLY don't understand, you pathetic creature, is that he was doing you a favor. No one else, and I mean no one, even cares at all what you think or say. Not the big guys you trash because they have done more than you. Not the little guys who watch this theater of surrealistic comedy.
That sir, is my professional psychiatric opinion. No doubt, you have accumulated "33 years" of grandiose, meaningless, bilious opinions on psychiatry, too, and I will hear them now.
Posted 27 January 2007 - 10:53 PM
Posted 27 January 2007 - 10:12 PM
>last time in a language you may be more familiar with. This
>is not rocket science, there are no tricks, this is
>straightforward out of the back of the chapter problem
>solving. Why it isn’t obvious is beyond me. The total
>acoustic energy transfer function between a source of acoustic
>energy and a point of listening, a directed or mapping
>function is defined for a source coordinate X,Y,Z, and a
>receiving coordinate x,y,z , is dependent on boundary values,
>the shape and absorption/reflection properties of the surface
>of the enclosure, conditions of state, temperature, humidity,
>and barometric pressure, and the normalized solid geometrical
>spectral radiating function of the source whether that source
>is a musical instrument or a loudspeaker system. The answer
>is a triple integral over an enclosed surface centered at the
>reception (listeners) coordinate, over all audible
>frequencies, and over time from zero to infinity. The
>collection of all such relationships within the enclosed
>surface is by definition the acoustics of the contained space.
> It can best be visualized as a series of graphs, each one for
>an arriving vector component passing through an infinitesimal
>surface area dS where each graph has three axes, time,
>frequency, and amplitude. The graph consist of a series of
>curves, each curve being an arriving echo and the shape and
>amplitude of the curve being the relative spectral transfer
>and relative amplitude to the normalized transfer of the
>For a sound reproducer to be accurate for reproducing the
>source in the sense that I have defined as  in my other
>posting on this thread, both the direct and reflected transfer
>functions from the direction of the loudspeaker must be
>spectrally flat. This means that if the combination of the
>loudspeaker and the room acoustics result in reflections which
>are not flat, supplemental energy of the correct frequency and
>amplitude must be radiated which will make them flat. This
>almost invariably means additional indirect high frequency
>energy because of the usual inherent limitations of the power
>radiating characteristics of the speaker and the frequency
>selective absorption properties of the listening room
>For a sound system to be accurate in the sense I have defined
>as , it must reproduce the time delays which arrive at the
>listener from the same relative directions, with the same
>delay times, relative amplitudes and each one having the same
>relative spectral change G(jw) with respect to the direct
>field as is experienced by the listener in a concert hall.
>Furthermore, for either scheme, if the spectral transfer from
>the microphone to the signal to the loudspeaker is not flat
>due to variables of recording technique, it must be made flat
>through equalization. No sound reproducing systems in the
>world I am aware of comes close to meeting the performance
>criteria for either definition of the problem.
>Give this more than 33 seconds of your consideration. It lies
>at the crux of what high fidelity sound reproduction is about.
> If you still dismiss it, then I give up, communication
>between us is hopeless.
I've found an article today that I believe will make you both happy and sad. It's in this weekend's issue of the WSJ. It was written by world renoun classical pianist Byron Janis. Now we have the professional musician's perspective.
He details his struggles with acoustics both in the concert hall and recording studio. It's quite pertinent to some opinions you've shared and, for me, quite enlightening. He write about another dozen or so variables in the acoustics of recorded music equation I wrote about in an earlier post. I suspect now we are up to some astronomical number of permutations and combinations of ambience, tone, etc. etc. etc that, in themselves negate any attempt to design the perfect loudspeaker for; not matter how far the paradigm gets shifted.
After reading the article, I've come to the conclusion that your quest for concert hall and instrument realism is fruitless, simply because there are WAY too many variables to control. Give it up.
My suggestion is that you consider purchasing (if you haven't already) a good RTA and TEF analyzer and a 60 band graphic equalizer so you can analyze and adjust for each recording until it matches YOUR perception of what the recording SHOULD or, should I write, MUST sound like. You may also want to supplement this gear with an echo chamber and/or a reverb chamber to optimize those early, not so early,late and really late reflections your speaker and listening room cannot accomodate.
Or, better yet - just enjoy the music rather than focusing so much on the sound of the music.
It's all about the music
Carl's Custom Loudspeakers
Carl's Custom Loudspeakers
Posted 27 January 2007 - 07:48 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users