Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Loudspeaker directivity by Roy Allison


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

#41 speaker dave

speaker dave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Vintage audio, psychoacoustics, bicycling, shortwave radio, photography, record collecting (mostly classical piano).

Posted 28 May 2010 - 05:24 PM

Progress in this industry is measured by the fact that you can now manufacture a pair of two way speakers each having a 5 inch woofer and a 1 inch tweeter and charge $4000 for it with a straight face like Merlin does and people will say and believe it is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Twenty years ago for a two way 8" speaker you could only charge around $1500 to $2000 and get away with it. So that's progress. Of course there's always Peter Qvortrops' high end TOTL 8" two way speaker that sells for $150,000 the last time I looked. I guess it depends on the price of silver and Russian Birch at any moment. Some would argue it is better than AR4x, others would say it's the other way around. I only heard it once and I'm still on the fence about it. I didn't have a chance to do an AB comparison but I was not impressed. I'd say high end audio equipment today is priced at about 50 to 100 times what it's actually worth. Small wonder it's a dying industry. Still at those profit margins you only have to sell a few units a year to stay in business....if you operate out of your garage like some people do. Zzzzzzz.

You may be surprised to find that I agree nearly 100% with your opinions on the high end audio business. I just don't see that as being indicative of the state of technical progress.
Unfortunately the market for good value sensibly priced gear has dried up, so I am installing digital theaters and reminiscing about the good old days. Others are trying to sell $150,000 speakers. Gotta make a living.

BTW, what's wrong with Snell AII among other things is that its off axis radiation at around 7-9 Khz is so great compared to its frontal radiation that reflections in that range are louder than the direct field in all but the deadest rooms. That gives it a very interesting and pleasing coloration. Having discovered it purely by accident through experimentation with other speakers I enjoyed listening to it for about a day and then never cared to hear it again. AIIIi does the same thing, it has to do with the polyurethane glued to the front of the tweeter.) Once I knew what it was and how it was done, I lost all interest in owning one. What's interesting about the AR tweeter is that its equivalent could easily be manufactured today simply by changing the geometry of the dome. Nobody cares to because that is not what is in vogue at the moment.

Not aware of this but it sounds interesting. Regarding the ubiquitous 1" dome tweeter of today. I think it became the standard because its bandwidth fits the audio range nicely. It has good axial response to 20kHz and allows easy 2-way systems with typical woofers and a 3k crossover. Power loss in the top Octave; I guess we're all Heathens.

I'm hardly surprised that anoyone in the business of making or selling this stuff would say that pointing out that the emperor has no clothes on is ranting.

I'm guessing that anybody, inside or outside of the industry, would consider your previous post a rant.

David

#42 speaker dave

speaker dave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Vintage audio, psychoacoustics, bicycling, shortwave radio, photography, record collecting (mostly classical piano).

Posted 28 May 2010 - 05:51 PM

QUOTE (speaker dave @ May 28 2010, 04:17 AM) *

Aw, c’mon Dave, give it a shot.

In the meantime, I will:

I think there are several factors at play here, some technical and some emotional....


Steve F.

Hi Steve,

Nothing to quibble with here. I agree with your sentiments.

I think everyone here is a fan of AR. There are just different ideas of how sacred to hold the early designs and published works.

I collect old watches. I'm always amazed that their accuracy is pretty fair considering an all mechanical technology. Their movements are a thing of beauty and craftsmanship. It costs considerably to duplicate their mechanical quality today. And old cameras. They are slow to use but you can get good results: a Tessar or Color Skopar or Sumicron lens is sharp enough for prints of any practical size.

I had an old Corvair 1964 Spyder. The turbocharged one. I remember it as fun to drive and fairly fast. But in the back of my mind I know that if you put one in my driveway tonight, I would discover that it was only fast compared to my wife's slug of an MGB, the handling was treacherous, the seats didn't fit, it was noisy, etc.

If someone tells me they love the sound of their AR3a or 2a, well great! Was it the all time highpoint of speaker design and things were all down hill since then? Really?

David

#43 soundminded

soundminded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,573 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 06:37 PM

You may be surprised to find that I agree nearly 100% with your opinions on the high end audio business. I just don't see that as being indicative of the state of technical progress.
Unfortunately the market for good value sensibly priced gear has dried up, so I am installing digital theaters and reminiscing about the good old days. Others are trying to sell $150,000 speakers. Gotta make a living.

Not aware of this but it sounds interesting. Regarding the ubiquitous 1" dome tweeter of today. I think it became the standard because its bandwidth fits the audio range nicely. It has good axial response to 20kHz and allows easy 2-way systems with typical woofers and a 3k crossover. Power loss in the top Octave; I guess we're all Heathens.

I'm guessing that anybody, inside or outside of the industry, would consider your previous post a rant.

David



The 1" tweeter is ubiquitous because it can be made to have a resonant frequency low enough to match up with a small woofer and handle enough power to provide adequate output at its crossover frequency. If you don't give a hoot about off axis response it doesn't matter. Compared to the AR3a tweeter, the off axis reponse of the typical 1" dome tweeter pure and simple stinks being down about 10 to 15 db at 15 khz 30 to 45 degrees off axis. Small wonder you have to put your ears in a "sweet spot" to hear the highest octave assuming you can still hear those frequencies. AR3a's tweeter was down 5 db at 15 khz 60 degrees off axis by comparison. Even AR's engineers didn't think that was enough, the rationale for the LST and then later Allison's design an expression of that inadequacy. Had dispersion been adequate in their view, it would not have been necessary to go to the expense of building the enclosure with angled panels. That and not a need to compete against Bose 901 was the reason for it IMO, a pair of LSTs costing over twice what 901 cost. This was in keeping with AR's philosophy of maximum dispersion.

The reason most manufacturers do not want to build three way systems is that it would take one more driver and about 3 to 5 more crossover component parts. In AR3a those crossover parts only cost a few dollars even at retail.

It is a sad commentary on manufacturers that they sell speakers costing thousands of dollars and then tell you that you have to buy an additional subwoofer to hear the lowest octave or two of sound. It is an even sadder commentary on the market that willingly buys into it. IMO a speaker system which does not attempt to cover what its maker considers the full audible range of frequencies pertinent to the music it is supposed to reproduce is not selling anything that can legitimately be called a high fidelity loudspeaker system. Like the rest of the system, the manufacturer throws it over the wall and leaves it for the end user to figure out what to do with it.

#44 genek

genek

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,582 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Marcos, CA

Posted 28 May 2010 - 06:44 PM

Was it the all time highpoint of speaker design and things were all down hill since then? Really?

By whose standards? The modern science of consumer market research began sometime around the 1880's; since then manufacturers in every industry have spent untold person-hours and funds attempting to predict what consumer preferences will be once a product actually hits the shelves, and every industry is littered with the bones of those that didn't "get it right." Is the highpoint of speaker design the high, lofty technological achievement, or the one that sells 500,000 units with a 30% net ROI?

For an individual consumer thinking about buying speakers, it's neither; it's the one that most appeals when the time comes to pull out the checkbook or credit card. So for any number of potential speaker buyers who have not heard anything in 30 years that they found more appealing than their old speakers, be they ARs or JBLs, the answer to your question may very well be "Yes. Really." And then they go spend their money on a trip to a new theme park instead, hopefully one where you have installed something.

#45 soundminded

soundminded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,573 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 07:25 PM

As usual, Zilch, you don't have your facts straight. In 1966 -- just a couple of years after the last AR-3 Live-vs.-Recorded concert you so often malign -- AR had 32.3% commercial-loudspeaker market-share by unit volume. Contrast this with your favorite horn company, JBL: their market share was a paltry 5%. By 1969, second year after the AR-3a was introduced, AR had 27.8%, but JBL had fallen to 3.4%. In 1970, AR had declined to 20%; JBL steady at 3.9%. AR's market-share percentages certainly began to drop in the mid-to-late 80s and into the 90s, but it was still significantly above the west-coast crowd. So let's face it: during the heyday of high fidelity, only west-coast "movie-theatre sound" devotees seemed to be happy with the JBL "horn" sound. True music lovers didn't need their sound punched through a perforated theatre screen. In contrast, the more self-effacing, natural-sound reproduction from ARs, Advents, KLHs and Allisons kept the sales of east-coast, "Massachusetts-style" speakers miles above the harsh-sounding west-coast speaker designs of that period. It wasn’t until the end of high-fidelity sound, as we know it, that JBL made any inroads into the market, and by this time it was probably too late. Fortunately, JBL had Harmon Industries and the professional sound market to keep it afloat. So, Zilch, by denigrating AR's fine reputation you are simply attacking "success." So what's the point?

By the way, I don't think anyone would praise or blame Ken Kantor for the overall fortunes or failures at AR. His contributions were more subtle, and I don't think he affected the sales numbers at AR until the early 1990s with the AR-303 and so forth.

--Tom Tyson


While I agree with you about the poor performance of JBL speakers for accurately reproducing "serious music" I don't think the number of units sold comparison is fair. JBL did not offer anything anywhere near the price of AR4x (or KLH 17.) The least expensive speaker they made as I recall was the L66 Jubal which was I think a 3 way 12" system. I believe it was even more expensive than AR2ax, probably closer in price to AR3/3a. Therefore it would be unreasonable to expect that a highly budget minded segment of the market, the college crowd for example would have been able to consider buying JBL speakers as an alternative to AR. Perhaps someone else has more data on what they offered in that era.

#46 Zilch

Zilch

    DECEASED

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berkeley, CA

Posted 28 May 2010 - 08:32 PM

This was in keeping with AR's philosophy of maximum dispersion.

Careful, now, that's viewed by some here as Zilch patent pejorative. :)

IMO a speaker system which does not attempt to cover what its maker considers the full audible range of frequencies pertinent to the music it is supposed to reproduce is not selling anything that can legitimately be called a high fidelity loudspeaker system.

But that doesn't imply that it must all be in one cab. In fact, distributed bass has been demonstrated to have significant advantage in normalizing the low-frequency wavefield in small spaces. Packaging that and the mid/high drivers separately is an effective approach.

[Not so much if that mid/high comprises a 3.5" driver in a 4" cube, perhaps.... :P ]

ZilchLab Loudspeaker Recycling Center - Crank up the SIGNAL!


#47 Steve F

Steve F

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 828 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 08:52 PM


"But that doesn't imply that it must all be in one cab. In fact, distributed bass has been demonstrated to have significant advantage in normalizing the low-frequency wavefield in small spaces. Packaging that and the mid/high drivers separately is an effective approach."


This is quite correct, of course, since the requirements for placement in a room for best bass performance and the placement requirements for optimum mid-high propagation/imaging are often at odds with each other. This is why full-range towers without Allison/AR-9 woofer placement can be tricky.....

Although, TBT, it always seems to be worse in theory than it is in practice. I've usually gotten very good results with full-range speakers exercising common-sense placement practices. Never really thought any of my systems was 'ruined' by the Allison mid-bass floor-bounce dip.

Steve F.

#48 genek

genek

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,582 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Marcos, CA

Posted 28 May 2010 - 09:23 PM

Although, TBT, it always seems to be worse in theory than it is in practice. I've usually gotten very good results with full-range speakers exercising common-sense placement practices. Never really thought any of my systems was 'ruined' by the Allison mid-bass floor-bounce dip.

Same here.

Does anybody remember, historically, whether the tiny satellite/subwoofer scheme was introduced for home theater or if someone came up with it for music prior to that?

#49 soundminded

soundminded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,573 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 10:06 PM

Same here.

Does anybody remember, historically, whether the tiny satellite/subwoofer scheme was introduced for home theater or if someone came up with it for music prior to that?


The first subwoofer I'm aware of was part of the Infinity Servo-Statik 1 system ($1800) and then the 1A (Around $4000.) It included its own servo amplifier specifically designed for that system. The first satellite sub system I'm aware of came from Cambridge Soundworks. The rest were copycats. Bose was into it early on. There was no home theater in those days, just music and television. Someone familiar with the history of Cambridge might remember when they introduced it, probably sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Home theater came into its own as a result of the VCR which provided audio outputs that could be hooked up to a separate sound system. When stereo and then high fidelity were introduced to VCRs that was a crucial development.

There were early attempts to marry large panel type speakers to woofers, KLH9 and AR1W but the lack of available active crossover networks, equalizers, or other suitable hardware and the high cost of amplifiers and the heat they generated made that impractical. Martin Logan electrostatic hybrids are more successful recent such efforts although IMO it is not a very accurate speaker. The development of efficient inexpensive high powered plate amplifiers with built in crossover networks and equalizers has greatly increased the practicality of subwoofers. Dayton (Parts Express) offers what seems to be a very good one at a reasonable price that can be bought as a kit.

JBL has a video on its web site explaining Toole's findings regarding the optimal number (4) and placement of subwoofers in a room to obtain the most uniform bass response. With very low bass frequencies, even AR9's room response can can change radically when you move just a foot or two closer or further away from a wall. Also moving AR9 just a few inches can radically change the in room system bass response.

#50 genek

genek

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,582 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Marcos, CA

Posted 28 May 2010 - 10:19 PM

I remember the Infinity and others of its era. But those were intended to to augment fuller-range speakers that usually went down into the 40-60 Hz range on their own. I was thinking specifically of when we first saw the satellite/sub scheme in which the sub takes over everything under 100-200 Hz and the satellites have no woofers at all.

I just looked up the history of Cambridge Soundworks, and it was founded by Henry Kloss in 1988, so if sub/satellites came before that it had to have been by someone else.

#51 soundminded

soundminded

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,573 posts

Posted 28 May 2010 - 11:31 PM

I remember the Infinity and others of its era. But those were intended to to augment fuller-range speakers that usually went down into the 40-60 Hz range on their own. I was thinking specifically of when we first saw the satellite/sub scheme in which the sub takes over everything under 100-200 Hz and the satellites have no woofers at all.

I just looked up the history of Cambridge Soundworks, and it was founded by Henry Kloss in 1988, so if sub/satellites came before that it had to have been by someone else.


According to the article in this link Bose invented it in 1986.

http://www.ehow.com/...-explained.html

#52 speaker dave

speaker dave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Vintage audio, psychoacoustics, bicycling, shortwave radio, photography, record collecting (mostly classical piano).

Posted 29 May 2010 - 01:44 AM

Does anybody remember, historically, whether the tiny satellite/subwoofer scheme was introduced for home theater or if someone came up with it for music prior to that?


Home theater made it popular but there was a lot around before that. Remember the Visonik David's (David and Goliath system, they called it)? The little Braun and ADS systems also.

In the 60's Paul Weathers had a small system where the satellites looked like books to be hidden on a bookshelf. In the early stereo days EV came out with second channels sans woofers. I think it was called a Stereohedron. Midrange and tweeter horns but the first system handled all the bass. (Not exactly the same, I know.)

Whenever there is a jump in the number of speakers we want consumers to buy, 1 to 2 or 2 to 5, we have to get creative in finding ways to make them smaller.

#53 speaker dave

speaker dave

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 465 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto
  • Interests:Vintage audio, psychoacoustics, bicycling, shortwave radio, photography, record collecting (mostly classical piano).

Posted 29 May 2010 - 02:02 AM

Although, TBT, it always seems to be worse in theory than it is in practice. I've usually gotten very good results with full-range speakers exercising common-sense placement practices. Never really thought any of my systems was 'ruined' by the Allison mid-bass floor-bounce dip.

Steve F.


Heresy!!

I've noticed the same thing, whether considering the wall bounce behind or the floor bounce in front. When the speaker is fairly close to the wall behind, the Allison dip is quite pronounced. As you pull away from the wall it gets confused in the general room effects. Same with floor bounces, from a meter or so away the cancelation dip is quite distinct, as you move off to a realistic listening distance it is still there but harder to devine amongst other room effects.

David

#54 genek

genek

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,582 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Marcos, CA

Posted 29 May 2010 - 02:32 AM

Home theater made it popular but there was a lot around before that. Remember the Visonik David's (David and Goliath system, they called it)? The little Braun and ADS systems also.

In the 60's Paul Weathers had a small system where the satellites looked like books to be hidden on a bookshelf. In the early stereo days EV came out with second channels sans woofers. I think it was called a Stereohedron. Midrange and tweeter horns but the first system handled all the bass. (Not exactly the same, I know.)

Whenever there is a jump in the number of speakers we want consumers to buy, 1 to 2 or 2 to 5, we have to get creative in finding ways to make them smaller.

I remember the Visoniks and the Braun/ADS. I have a pair of AR's answer to them, the 1ms. IIRC, though, only the Davids were teamed with external woofers; the ADS and AR-1ms weren't and were perfectly usable without them in an office, bedroom or dorm type of system. Weathers' Triphonic (which I think I actually saw and heard long ago, but had forgotten about,thanks for reminding me) is probably the earliest one of the sort I was thinking of.

#55 Steve F

Steve F

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 828 posts

Posted 29 May 2010 - 01:04 PM

Same here.

Does anybody remember, historically, whether the tiny satellite/subwoofer scheme was introduced for home theater or if someone came up with it for music prior to that?



A friend of mine had the JBL L212 3-piece system, although the "satellites" were 8" 3-way floorstanders. Still, the theory was the same--a separate sub for optimum bass placement, and sats for optimum M-T imaging. This system was from the early 80's, I believe. Strictly a music system.

The Bose AM-5 was the product that really popularized the concept. It was an '87 intro, and was a music product only at first. The twisting small cubes, plus the "invisible" bass module were incredibly successful. Cambridge Soundworks followed with their Ensemble system about a year later (with two--not one--hideaway bass modules), and Boston Acoustics came out with their Sub-Sat 6 in 1989, which used dual 6 1/2" woofs in a bandpass enclosure and sats with a 4" mid and 3/4" dome tweeter. The BA sounded really good, the Ensemble sounded pretty good, and the AM-5 sounded good to the people who bought it.

Steve F.

#56 Zilch

Zilch

    DECEASED

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berkeley, CA

Posted 29 May 2010 - 05:38 PM

Wasn't Al Gore first?

[He was with HT, no...? :P ]

ZilchLab Loudspeaker Recycling Center - Crank up the SIGNAL!


#57 Pete B

Pete B

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,532 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Connecticut, NE USA
  • Interests:Electrical Engineer (see my web site link)
    Interest in Audio for over 30 years, got started early
    The Classics, Amplifier Design
    Available for engineering consultations

Posted 29 May 2010 - 06:00 PM

Home theater made it popular but there was a lot around before that. Remember the Visonik David's (David and Goliath system, they called it)? The little Braun and ADS systems also.

In the 60's Paul Weathers had a small system where the satellites looked like books to be hidden on a bookshelf. In the early stereo days EV came out with second channels sans woofers. I think it was called a Stereohedron. Midrange and tweeter horns but the first system handled all the bass. (Not exactly the same, I know.)

Whenever there is a jump in the number of speakers we want consumers to buy, 1 to 2 or 2 to 5, we have to get creative in finding ways to make them smaller.



I'll take David's word for it about the work done in the 1960s.

I remember hearing Visonic Davids teamed with an M&K subwoofer around 1977 or perhaps 78:

http://old.visonik.de/en/historie.php

#58 kkantor

kkantor

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 761 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 May 2010 - 03:23 AM

Interestingly, while Toole and others (Zilch, for example, but also some other more notable individuals) make some solid claims about what does and does not matter with loudspeaker sound in real-world listening rooms, only Allison and Berkovitz managed to do some real research is real-world rooms. Sure, maybe Toole and others are correct about some things (I doubt some of this, but let's just speculate), but the fact is that Toole's work at the NRC and Harman, at least from what I gather, NEVER did do any real-world evaluations in real-world home listening rooms like what we had from Allison and Berkovitz. A lot of special measuring and listening has been done in the specialized rooms that Toole and Olive set up, but nowhere I know of did those guys go out into the world of consumers and actually measure, let alone do listening evaluations, in rooms that most people (including people like those who are members of our little CSP group, here) live with. Ideal situations were embraced by the Toole faction, and conculsions were reached by means of idealized listening environments that few people experience at home.

Yes, AR company data as it related to direct-field performance did not involve measuring in situations where cabinet diffraction and driver interference would have an impact. On the other hand, in real-world listening rooms other factors (boundary reflections, reflections from furniture, and placement anomalies) would also skew the results, so competing brands and brands in production right now that stress direct-field exactness, would have problems with those artifacts. In other words, there is really no way to predict the impact of the placement locations, or even listener positions, and so the best way to get at least a decent idea of what a system can do is provide good driver curves (on and off axis; the wider angled the better), and then provide power curves that illustrate what the speakers can do to input flat power in the bulk of home-listening environments. Anything else will vary widely from room to room. Heck, most speaker and driver manufacturers who do provide system or driver curves rarely show response characteristics much beyond 45 degrees off axis, and when we do see driver or system curves that show wide-angular response the results are often not all that good. Indeed, the driver curves that AR provided four decades ago (and Allison provided three decades ago) are still equal to or superior to any produced by contemporary manufacturers or speaker builders.

While it is true that the concert slope typical of pre-ferrofluid AR speakers of the era were sloped downward due to thermal issues, the fact is that many, if not most, classical recordings of that era were, as Allison has noted in some of his writings, much "hotter" in terms of brightness than what one would encounter at live performances in good halls, and when sitting in the best seats. (Jeeze, I do hope that some people here make it a habit to attend such concerts.) It may have been serendipity that things worked out as they did, but the fact is that the situation at that time did require some upper midrange and treble attenuation, and the AR line at the time delivered the required goods. Later on, Allison, who was using both ferrofluid and silicone grease as midrange and tweeter cooling agents from the word go with his Allison Acoustic systems, made it possible to select either a flat output or a "concert curve," with a middle option that kind of split the difference. Still later, once the digital age took hold and pop music began to eclipse classical even more than previously, Allison began to provide his speakers with no slope options at all, with the dialed-in curve both smooth and flat.

All I can offer up as a counterpoint to your comment "Why would anybody argue that engineering advances since then haven't been true progress?" is that if Villchur could make a pair of cabinet-diffracted, driver-interferenced speakers like the AR-3 work so well during those LvR concerts (proving to him at least, and to Allison, too, that maybe diffractions and driver interactions were not a big deal at all), just what kind of "meaningful" advances have we had in the last 40 years? I think that in terms of performance in real-world rooms Allison, with his woofer-placement approach, went beyond what AR and Villchur did prior to his retiring from AR (and Villchur, I should note, was impressed by those advances), and I think that liquid cooling for drivers certainly did make it possible for systems to take better advantage of advances in digital recording and playback technologies and the advent of home theater sound. And thanks to certain subwoofer manufacturers, low-bass performance certainly improved.

As for Villchur maybe doing things differently if he, as you noted, "could have achieved a speaker with better direct field response at the time and could have sold a very different looking grille-less system," well, no. I think that he proved to himself, and also proved to a lot of astute audio journalists and consumers (with the latter opting to buy a huge number of AR speakers), that the issue of diffraction effects, driver interference, and the so-called need for perfected performance in the direct field in opposition to perfected performance in the reverberant field, was not much of a serious issue at all. If his LvR concerts had been flops perhapse he would have changed direction, but they were not flops, as many contemporaries were ready to admit.

These days, with musical tastes being somewhat different, and with recordings in most pop-music cases NOT being made to simulate as best they can a real-world, acoustic-instrument performance space, Villchur might take a different approach. However, given HIS musical tastes I rather think that these days he would opt to get into a different business altogether.

Howard Ferstler



What makes you think that Villchur doesn't like contemporary music or contemporary recordings? I have never heard of anything to suggest that. In fact, AR was born in an era dominated by incredibly poor recordings and very cheesy musical tastes.

I haven't the slightest doubt that if EV were designing commercial products now, he would consider the nature of current music, the increased interest and understanding related to localization and imaging, and offer appropriate products.

-k

#59 Zilch

Zilch

    DECEASED

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,056 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berkeley, CA

Posted 30 May 2010 - 03:29 AM

Toole's work 25 years ago was performed in a listening space specifically engineered to simulate typical home conditions, which ultimately became the IEC industry standard listening room.

Baffle step compensation is well understood today.

Much of this is better viewed without wearing Allison sunglasses.

[There's another, more common way of saying that, but I will spare the forum so base a characterization.... :P ]

ZilchLab Loudspeaker Recycling Center - Crank up the SIGNAL!


#60 kkantor

kkantor

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 761 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 May 2010 - 03:36 AM

Same here.

Does anybody remember, historically, whether the tiny satellite/subwoofer scheme was introduced for home theater or if someone came up with it for music prior to that?



The first sub-sat system of any commercial relevance that I know of was from Weathers, in the late 50's. No doubt, Bose resurrected the concept and defined the modern approach. Of particular note is their use of a "bandpass" woofer enclosure.

-k




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users