174 replies to this topic

[genek]

I'm seeing nothing but interested contributors in this thread, actually, and 8.8 views/post.

[Average in The Kitchen is 84,184/2729 = 30.85.... ]

I think a lot of people had their say in the first try of this thread and haven't posted again since that was shut down.

About half the views in every kitchen thread are by your forum moderator...

[Zilch]

I think a lot of people had their say in the first try of this thread and haven't posted again since that was shut down.

Same posters in both threads, actually, except we swapped Tom for Pete in this one.

With 2.5 times as many replies thus far, seems like everybody has more to say on the subject in this one....

[speaker dave]

I don't agree that "good design" is always about neutrality; it can also be about engagement. In fact, good design can chase many goals, including a designer's interest in interpreting and improving the definitions and approaches of others. I have tried to do that with some designs, like the 303; isn't that approach at least part of what you were after at McIntosh?

-k

At McIntosh (the Harley Davidson of audio) there was certainly a design heritage to follow (lots of tweeters in a line!). But I would never consider mimicing the sound of a previous product. Actually, I was brought in to help break them out of a stodgy sound quality that the older designer had gotten into.

With any company stuck with strong traditions, I think it is a bit like being an engineer at Porsche: chances are you will be working on a new 911 and the engine will be in the rear. Both customers and the marketing department will insist on it. Likely you will want to modernize and improve as much as you can within the format, rather than bring back the oversteer of the 1967 version for the sake of nostalgia!

David

[speaker dave]

Are there elements of the "Ideal Loudspeaker" in these classics? If so, there's no better place to discover them, and we've already identified a major one -- constant directivity.

I don't think we've heard your argument on that yet. Is CD a necessary criterion?

David

[Steve F]

My plan would be to use all new and modern drivers, and to have a switch for Classic
sound, as close as possible to the 3a, and "Revoiced" to compete with modern designs.
I would use a low diffraction cabinet in order to get the best possible sound - perhaps
something like the AR-91 cabinet.

I have done a quick prototype of the "Revoiced" version on an AR-11 using the original
drivers - just to prove to myself that there was room for improvement. This is probably
what you were thinking of, but I didn't use an AR-3a.

Pete,

I always liked the 11 very much, and thought that it corrected many of the inherent "ills" of the 3a (deficient HF response, intrusive cabinet molding, etc.), while retaining its strengths (solid deep bass, widely-dispersed, smooth M-HF).

In what way does your revoiced 11 differ from the original 11? I'd love to hear it. I live in the Boston area, and have family in CT, where I grew up. Maybe on a trip down to visit, I might stop by......I'll bring the cold ones.

Steve F.

[Zilch]

I don't think we've heard your argument on that yet. Is CD a necessary criterion?

No, merely means applicable toward achieving the larger goal of room independence, at least according to Toole in theory, and Linkwitz, Geddes, et al. in practice....

[Carlspeak]

No, merely means applicable toward achieving the larger goal of room independence, at least according to Toole in theory, and Linkwitz, Geddes, et al. in practice....

Isn't Geddes' Nathan and similar designs CD types? If so, haven't you built one yet?

[Steve F]

With any company stuck with strong traditions, I think it is a bit like being an engineer at Porsche: chances are you will be working on a new 911 and the engine will be in the rear. Both customers and the marketing department will insist on it. Likely you will want to modernize and improve as much as you can within the format, rather than bring back the oversteer of the 1967 version for the sake of nostalgia!

David

I agree with Dave about company traditions being a strong starting point. I've often thought that the product planning sessions at AR for the TSW series (especially the 910) had some of this kind of thinking: "Make it a big floorstander, you know, with double 12's. Sealed, of course. And make sure there's a '9' in the model number to remind people of the AR-9 family."

Maybe k can comment on their gestation; I think he was around for the TSW series.

As for the sound of the MGC-1, I heard them once or twice. Was it at a BAS meeting or an AR factory tour? I don't remember.

They were "A-B'd" w/ and w/o the side drivers. W/o, the sound was very "focused,", direct; "etched" is an audiophile-esque term that jumps to mind. "Uncolored." "Analytical."

With the side drivers, the sound expanded noticeably and became more three-dimensional. However, for whatever reason, the tonal character with the side drivers was a bit more midrange-y and nasal than the 'direct' sound alone.

I was always a bit puzzled as to why the marketing heads at AR decided that the MGC-1 was to use dual 8-inch woofers with an LF response somewhere in between a 5 and a 3a. For their price ($3500/pr in walnut, $7000(!!!)/pr in rosewood, I believe) to not even have 3a-like bass response was curious, to say the least.

Was this a concession to the limited-LF-think of the '80's audiophile world? Again, maybe k can shed some light on that thinking.

Does anyone remember the MGC-2? A conventional rectangular cross-sectional tower with drivers on two sides and an angled gold "stripe" on the top panel indicating the correct angle to orient the speakers for proper operation. These used a 12" woofer and had normal AR 12" bass. Did AR sell any of these? I never saw them in the flesh and never heard them.

AR engineering and AR marketing have always operated in different universes, in my view.

Steve F.

[genek]

Has anybody heard these"

http://www.esploudsp...hran/index.html

I'm wondering if the MGC-1's Ken was keeping in storage all those years managed to get out and mate while he wasn't watching them...

[Zilch]

Isn't Geddes' Nathan and similar designs CD types? If so, haven't you built one yet?

Yes, Geddes builds CD exclusively, oblate spheroid waveguides being his "thing," with Nathan using the 10" variant.

I've probably built a hundred or so CD systems; there's at least 10 in every ZilchLab pic.

EconoWave is CD. It's what I do, basically; Indignia w/Ray and the Minimus 7 retro w/Pete were efforts outside my mainstream.

This pic posted elsewhere here in The Kitchen was pre-EconoWave. Speaker Dave is well represented:

http://www.classicsp...r...ost&id=4875

[Working up a XO for AR4x w/JBL OASR waveguides (second row, left) and BMS 4540 drivers with a forum pal today.... ]

[Carlspeak]

Yes, Geddes builds CD exclusively, oblate spheroid waveguides being his "thing," with Nathan using the 10" variant.

I've probably built a hundred or so CD systems; there's at least 10 in every ZilchLab pic.

EconoWave is CD. It's what I do, basically; Indignia w/Ray and the Minimus 7 retro w/Pete were efforts outside my mainstream.

This pic posted elsewhere here in The Kitchen was pre-EconoWave. Speaker Dave is well represented:

http://www.classicsp...r...ost&id=4875

[Working up a XO for AR4x w/JBL OASR waveguides (second row, left) and BMS 4540 drivers with a forum pal today.... ]

We're talking about the 'ideal' speaker here - not salvaged roadside throwaways that have been econowaved.
Have you built a Geddes' speaker. This is a highly engineered CD design that would be worth testing. Also presume you could unload it at cost at a minimun in Calif.
I'm sure you'd be itch'in to test a Nathan against your econowaves; right?

[Pete B]

IIRC, that was when we were discussing what I might be willing to pay if someone offered a new speaker as a product for sale. Not the same thing as building one for "scientific reasons." If we're talking about a community research exercise, I could probably kick in a hundred or so to help defray the cost of parts and materials, the cost of a leg of a round-robin shipment for trials and maybe some food and booze for a SoCal listening party. What would be in it for whoever builds the thing would be bragging rights, nothing more.

I should probably mention that I'm not normally a what's in it for me type, however on this forum
it is really the only reasonable way to consider such a proposal.

Quite the change in tone as compared to last time:
http://www.classicsp...r...ost&p=78907

[genek]

I should probably mention that I'm not normally a what's in it for me type, however on this forum
it is really the only reasonable way to consider such a proposal.

Quite the change in tone as compared to last time:
http://www.classicsp...r...ost&p=78907

Approach me as a sales person pitching a new speaker to me as a retail product and watch my tone revert right back.

And the current economy has closed the window on the amounts I mentioned last year; figure on dividing them all by two this year.

[Pete B]

Approach me as a sales person pitching a new speaker to me as a retail product and watch my tone revert right back.

And the current economy has closed the window on the amounts I mentioned last year; figure on dividing them all by two this year.

Based on your responses to my questions I don't think you've done the research to find out
if there is a product out there that fills your needs. It is easy to say, I like this, have liked
it for 40 years, give me something identical.

Buy three pairs of 303s used and hire an expert to go over them to get two good pairs to fill
your repair needs. Hire a cabinet man to give you the finish that you want.

Seems your goal is to support the position that a better loudspeaker has never been designed,
rather than find a modern one that is actually better.

I'm not a salesman.

[Pete B]

Pete,

I always liked the 11 very much, and thought that it corrected many of the inherent "ills" of the 3a (deficient HF response, intrusive cabinet molding, etc.), while retaining its strengths (solid deep bass, widely-dispersed, smooth M-HF).

In what way does your revoiced 11 differ from the original 11? I'd love to hear it. I live in the Boston area, and have family in CT, where I grew up. Maybe on a trip down to visit, I might stop by......I'll bring the cold ones.

Steve F.

Steve,

You're welcome to stop by sometime, I'll need a lot of notice, LOL since
I lost interest in the 11s. I am planning to rebuild another pair for a friend
within the next 4 months so that would provide a reference pair - unless you
already have a pair.
I did not keep the modded 11s together but I have my notes to reconstruct them.
One reason why I delayed this was that I didn't have another pair to compare
against. I will soon.

I listened to them with the level switches up as several here suggested and they
were far too forward and bright. I then looked for the best balance as compared
to my reference and that was with the mid all the way down, and the tweeter
mid-way. -3 on the mid was too low, and 0 dB on the mid was too high. But
even with the best balance there was a problem in the midrange, a lack of focus,
a nasality. It was just not convincing. I only made minimal measurements and
the changes were mainly in the mid to tweeter crossover.

I'll PM you to let you know how we might go about doing this.

Something interesting that I find is that when a speaker lacks the realism that I
mentioned as far as when a speaker disappears it seems that many listeners go
to a more is better perspective. They turn the controls all the way up. But when
you get it right and they hear it, they say, DON'T CHANGE ANYTHING and they are
hooked.

[genek]

Based on your responses to my questions I don't think you've done the research to find out
if there is a product out there that fills your needs. It is easy to say, I like this, have liked
it for 40 years, give me something identical.

So what's wrong with doing what's easy? I'm not the kind of audio hobbyist who engages in constant upgrading and nothing has exploded, burned down or flooded on me in the past 40 years or so. I haven't found myself needing to make a concerted effort to buy new speakers in years and all the new ones I have heard have been incidental experiences while going to dealers for other things (phono parts, disc players, etc.) I haven't "done the research to find out if there is a product out there" that fills my needs because I don't really have any unfilled speaker needs. An occasional whim or two, maybe.

I have never taken the position that there has never been a "better" loudspeaker designed. Certainly there have been speakers that the majority of consumers seem to think are better, and there may be speakers out there that I might like better enough to buy if I heard them. I just haven't heard them yet. If someone recommends something to me, I'll give them a listen if I come across them, but you're right, I'm not going out looking and I'm not going to build my own just out of curiosity, either. Curiosity would be enough for me to participate in some kind of group experiment, but that's as far as it goes.

And if you're not a salesman, why were you asking me those consumer marketing questions last year? It certainly seemed as if you were trying to sell me something, even if it was an idea rather than a product.

[Pete B]

So what's wrong with doing what's easy? I'm not the kind of audio hobbyist who engages in constant upgrading and nothing has exploded, burned down or flooded on me in the past 40 years or so. I haven't found myself needing to make a concerted effort to buy new speakers in years and all the new ones I have heard have been incidental experiences while going to dealers for other things (phono parts, disc players, etc.) I haven't "done the research to find out if there is a product out there" that fills my needs because I don't really have any unfilled speaker needs. An occasional whim or two, maybe.

I have never taken the position that there has never been a "better" loudspeaker designed. Certainly there have been speakers that the majority of consumers seem to think are better, and there may be speakers out there that I might like better enough to buy if I heard them. I just haven't heard them yet. If someone recommends something to me, I'll give them a listen if I come across them, but you're right, I'm not going out looking and I'm not going to build my own just out of curiosity, either. Curiosity would be enough for me to participate in some kind of group experiment, but that's as far as it goes.

And if you're not a salesman, why were you asking me those consumer marketing questions last year? It certainly seemed as if you were trying to sell me something, even if it was an idea rather than a product.

Fair enough, but this is the claim that you made:
http://www.classicsp...r...ost&p=78904
"My first reaction to claims that today's designers have better insights on speaker design than Villchur, Kloss and Allison and that all their design goals can be equalled or bettered with today's technology is always "Where's the showroom, I have a credit card and I'm not afraid to use it." It's only when I'm told there is no product to back up the claim (unless I'm prepared to break out a power saw and mutilate existing product to install something that has never actually been tested against the originals head-to-head) that I get irritated. I'm tired of hearing pie-in-the-sky claims that better product can be produced; I want to hear the better product. So far, a "superior AR-3a" that sounds any better than Ken's last attempt continues to be the audio industry's equivalent of cold fusion."

Yet it doesn't seem that you've made the effort to hear modern designs. I don't go
chasing every new product but I do try to get to a show once a year and to
showrooms from time to time for demos. And I have heard some mighty
impressive demos.

I am genuinely curious as to what form factor is preferred by AR enthusiasts.
If I ever do clone the 3a I'll do it in the form factor that is most popular. I'm
thinking the LST would probably be a better choice but I could prove out the
design in a 3a concept.

You said retail sales, I don't work in retail sales.

[Zilch]

We're talking about the 'ideal' speaker here - not salvaged roadside throwaways that have been econowaved.

I'm not putting anything forth as the "ideal" loudspeaker; we are discussing goals and potential design approaches that might achieve them here.

The performance of Geddes's waveguides and the Nathan product have been documented by others, and eWaves A/B's against Geddes products. Earl admits that the Nathan waveguide is too small, and himself suggests that his 12" Abbey is a superior design. He has recently "adjusted" the performance of his entire line.

He also measured the EconoWaveguide and driver in combination, and the results are thoroughly documented on DIYaudio. Suffice it to say he regrets ever having done that; as others have suggested, EconoWave is the performance value leader. Of note: Geddes's own work began with Speaker Dave's 4430s, as well.

I'm sure you'd be itch'in to test a Nathan against your econowaves; right?

EconoWave is not a product, rather, a design concept. Geddes's speakers incorporate many of these same design features, but bypass the "Econo" part.

[genek]

Yet it doesn't seem that you've made the effort to hear modern designs. I don't go
chasing every new product but I do try to get to a show once a year and to
showrooms from time to time for demos. And I have heard some mighty
impressive demos.

I am genuinely curious as to what form factor is preferred by AR enthusiasts.
If I ever do clone the 3a I'll do it in the form factor that is most popular. I'm
thinking the LST would probably be a better choice but I could prove out the
design in a 3a concept.

You said retail sales, I don't work in retail sales.

Yes, I have on some occasions been in a receptive mood when a really good demo might have gotten my plastic out, but as I mentioned, there's never been a confluence of really good mood + a really good demo.

There are no shows here, and no more than two or three dealers within a 50-mile drive that can demo anything better than what's on the shelves at BestBuy, so "making an effort" to hear the most highly touted of today's speakers would likely require air travel and/or hotels, both of which tend to put me in a very surly mood. Anything less than a religious epiphany probably wouldn't penetrate the grumpiness. From my local listening, I can tell you that I do not like the current offerings from Martin Logan, Dali, and Anthony Gallo. The ESP speakers I posted a link to earlier have peaked my curiosity, but their $16k price tag puts them out of this year's price range, so no point in torturing myself until/unless business improves around here.

Form factor-wise, I'd still prefer a bookshelf box that can be placed vertically on a stand or laid on its side. In 40 years I've never had a listening room that would have worked with an LST shape, and maybe half the rooms I've had could have accommodated towers (the current room could, hence the ESP catching my eye). I've been perpetually underwhelmed by satellite+subwoofer arrangements, but as all the ones I've heard have been in peoples' homes or HT showrooms, it's possible I've never actually heard a system that was correctly set up for music.

Funny, you sure sounded like a used car salesman last year with that "how much would you spend for the right speaker" line...

[Zilch]

Gene should order up a pair of "new" Abbeys.

[And walk on the WILD side.... ]