109 replies to this topic

[Gerry S]

Thanks Carl. Speaking only for myself and not Steve F. I find evaluating loudspeakers to be VERY "hard work" when It was my "day job". I was surprised to find it equally taxing when I did it "for the fun of it". So I think I'll pass on your upcoming "shootout" (at least for now). Thanks for the invite though !

[genek]

I'm not sure where ADC (Audio Dynamics Corporation) originated from, but they also made phono cartridges as well. I'm guessing that their "sound" was somewhere midway between the "East Coast" and the "West Coast" philosophy debate at the time.

ADC was located in New Milford, CT.

[dynaco_dan]

Thanks sounminded. It's been a very long time since I read ANY magazine about audio. I do try to "stay in touch" with my "dwindling passion". My senior moments prevents me from remembering the Consumer Report era where I relied heavily on their rankings, but I distintly remember buying an ADC 303AX loudspeaker based on their ranking (thought it was a "best buy" at the time). I actually liked it more than some of the other New England Classics I've owned (and I've owned a LOT).

It IS "all about the music" afterall. Having spent a lifetime of reading, buying,comparing, testing and designing lousdpeakers, I want to get back to the "listening to music" part. No more "pissing contest" (I've engaged and started a few of my own) about who's "right" or "wrong" or what's "better". Still, I remain "curious" as to today's "state of the art' compaired to when audio was in it's prime.

I personally am VERY conflicted about today's "declining audiophile market". On the one hand, I'm dismayed by what's today's young listerner is missing by not having a "real" hi-fi system. On the other, I envy them because many of them listen to TONS of music on their "low-fi" devices (as opposed to spending their time finding that "sweet spot" or whatever audiophiles do!

Hi there

ADC also produced the ADC 404 speaker system.

The cabinet is only about half the size of an AR-4x, but it feels just as heavy.

Stereophile had it listed in, I believe, group D, along with AR-4X's and perhaps KLH Seventeen way back when.

I did read somewhere, way back when, about a 4 channel setup with AR-4X's in the front channel and ADC 404's in the rear.

I rescued a pair off ebuy in mint condition a few years ago and then put them in storage.

Also, I bought a spare woofer and tweeter for them.

The ADC XLM cartridge was apparently an outstanding cartridge, I don't remember why it didn't sell too well.

I do remember the ADC 303 and later versions being well reviewed speakers.

If I remember right, they called it, "The Brentwood".

[genek]

The ADC XLM cartridge was apparently an outstanding cartridge, I don't remember why it didn't sell too well.

The original XLM was actually a very good seller in its target market, but it was a high end "boutique" kind of cartridge. With a compliance about 2.5X that of its main rival, the Shure V15, it was suited to a narrower range of arms. I had one on my AR turntable and it was pushing the arm to its limits. Things got better when the XLM II with slightly dialed-back compliance came out.

I considered a pair of 303's before I bought my 2ax's, but while the sound was very good I was put off by the fact that the grilles were non-removable and the drivers were epoxied into the cabinets as in early KLHs. That was back in the days when most audio gear was actualy serviced from time to time and I didn't want something that could never be opened and repaired.

[tysontom]

In the LvR demo with the Nickelodeon I attended around 1966, 1967 AR3s were flanked by AR4x. You'd never have guessed they were barely 1/4 the price. Very impressive I thought. Both speakers would have been helped if they had been at the same height as the Nickelodeon. As I recall it was on a table or shelf at least 3 or 4 feet high and the speakers were on the floor.

Soundminded,

In the LvR demo with the Nickelodeon I attended around 1966, 1967 AR3s were flanked by AR4x. You'd never have guessed they were barely 1/4 the price. Very impressive I thought. Both speakers would have been helped if they had been at the same height as the Nickelodeon. As I recall it was on a table or shelf at least 3 or 4 feet high and the speakers were on the floor.

The Nickelodeon Live-versus-Recorded demonstration took place at the 1966 New York High Fidelity Music Show, and it featured the restored 1910 Seaburg Nickelodeon with AR-3s stacked beside it on sealed AR-3 cartons above the floor and an AR-4x on another stand or carton beside it. I heard this demonstration perhaps four or five times each day for the four-day Show, and each time I felt the reproduction of the AR-3 was almost (but not quite) perfect, particularly with the snares and the bass drum—both of which were very realistic. I listened intently with all of my concentration, eyes closed, and I could barely detect any differences. AR did this only at the 1966 New York Show, as other members of the Institute of High Fidelity Manufacturers were unhappy with LvR demonstrations during the normal exhibit hours.

The recorded music was done with the very fine Sony C-37A condenser microphones (AR had four of these microphones that were also used in the Fine Arts and Lopéz concerts) and into a carefully calibrated and aligned Magnecord 1028B tape recorder at 15ips. The output from the 1028B was fed into a Dynaco PAS-3X and a pair of Dynaco Mark IIIs. A few Ampex buffs (including AR's Fine Arts Quartet recording engineer Dave Jones) felt that the reproduction might have been better had Villchur used an Ampex 350 deck as with the Fine Arts and Gustavo Lopéz concerts, but it is doubtful. Except for the slightly higher hiss-noise level, the Magnecord 1028B is the equal of the Ampex 350 in frequency response, flutter, and distortion, so it' likely a moot point. However, Dave Jones and Villchur chose the Sony C37A over Neumann, Schoeps and AKG condenser microphones because it was superior in smoothness and flatness of response, especially throughout the midrange. It proved to be critical to the success of the Fine Arts LvR concerts. The Neumann had a slight peak at 7kHz, but the Sony was flat throughout that critical range.

The fact is that the Nickelodeon's belt-drive system would slip, and the instrument got out of tune—and did so during the Show—and the instrument was more difficult to reproduce than the ensemble tone of the Fine Arts Quartet. The belt-slippage problem plagued the instrument from the time Villchur purchased it from an upstate-New York antique dealer for $1500 in 1965—even after Villchur had it completely restored—yet despite the restoration the belt continued to slip after a few plays, and this affected the LvR performance to some degree.

Villchur also used a pair of AR-4xs, which did nearly as well as the AR-3. It demonstrated that the AR-4x, at about one-quarter of the cost, was close in quality to the top-of-the-line AR-3. This was a great testimonial to AR's design effort for the little AR-4x!


Magnecord 1028B Tape Recorder used with the Nickelodeon LvR demonstration.

1910 Seaburg Nickelodeon and AR-3 Speakers, 1966.

Sony C-37A Condenser Microphone (type used for AR Live-versus-Recorded demonstrations

--Tom Tyson

[dynaco_dan]

Hi Tom

Thank you for your photos and your commentary.

You have had some very nice past experiences which you so kindly share with us all, thank you again.

[soundminded]

Thanks for the photos and the background Tom. I don't quite recall it that way but it's been nearly 50 years so my memory may be faulty.

[Kieran M]

Carl, Is the CT speaker shootout open to the public, like me?! Would love to listen if I can be a guest,
Thanks,
Kieran

[Carlspeak]

Carl, Is the CT speaker shootout open to the public, like me?! Would love to listen if I can be a guest,
Thanks,
Kieran

PM sent.

[speaker dave]

The methods and goals of their efforts are for the most part the result of atempts to detemine what characterizes speakers the market likes best, not what is most accurate. As a result, it is hardly surprising that their conclusions would not coincide with Consumer Reports. Toole's contention is that he persuaded Consumer Reports that their methods are flawed and they no longer test or rate loudspeakers at least in part for that reason.

Personally I consider most of Toole's work market research, not scientific research. His one contribution of real value I'm aware of is identifying how many and where to place subwoofers in a room to get the most uniform bass response. His conclusion, 4, one in each corner or 4, one at each mid wall. I have serious doubts about his other methods and conclusions.

Toole's best effort based on what he learned was the $16,000 per pair Revel Ultima Salon. It used three 8" rear ported woofers, a midrange, and a front and rear firing tweeter. Olive has developed the $22,000 Revel Ultima Salon II which is similar but using a single forward firing tweeter. I intend to hear this speaker at a dealer in the next few weeks to see how well it really works. It seems to have been a favorite of John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile Magazine who does not own a pair. He claimed he couldn't afford them.

I don't know why you continue to repeat this when it is patently untrue. The Toole tests have a number of listeners rank test subjects in a variety of performance areas: bass extension, response smoothness, etc and then the category numbers are totalled. He has been able to prove great consistancy across large numbers of test subjects and when the test groups have a large variety of loudpseaker subjects. He has proven the reapeatability of the numerical results, and SeanOlive especially has been able to show a high correllation between axial response flatness and smoothness and the ranking in the tests. The correllation between flatness and ranking alone makes it hard to think this is a preference ranking rather than an accuracy ranking. (Unless we just accept that accuracy is popular, a surprising but welcome result.)

The methodology has been well published since before his time at Harman and further testing has only expanded its credibility. I don't know of any academics with serious concerns with the methods.

Be aware that Harman is a large organization and Floyd and Sean design none of the Harman products. They do not design the Revel products, or any of the many JBL products. They are not speaker designers. Their role is to create the test facilities and suggest test methodologies and advise the engineering groups of their findings, but Kevin Voeckes at Revel or Greg Timbers (high end JBL products) can choose to follow their guidlines or not. As such any Harman product that you point out may or may not have been influenced by Toole and Olive.

My understanding of the old Consumer Reports tests was that they relied on power response curves of the subject loudspeakers. Many papers along the way have shown that power response is at best an unreliable measurement (nearly irrelevant) and specifically that flat power response will not sound good, so it is not surprising that Consumer Reports rankings and Toole/Olive ranking would be at odds.

David S.

[dynaco_dan]

The original XLM was actually a very good seller in its target market, but it was a high end "boutique" kind of cartridge. With a compliance about 2.5X that of its main rival, the Shure V15, it was suited to a narrower range of arms. I had one on my AR turntable and it was pushing the arm to its limits. Things got better when the XLM II with slightly dialed-back compliance came out.

I considered a pair of 303's before I bought my 2ax's, but while the sound was very good I was put off by the fact that the grilles were non-removable and the drivers were epoxied into the cabinets as in early KLHs. That was back in the days when most audio gear was actualy serviced from time to time and I didn't want something that could never be opened and repaired.

Hi Gene

The ADC 404's cabinet rear panel is nailed on with finishing nails, with the head still exposed far enough out for their removal. Yuch

At least if there were screws, it would have appeared a little more professional, to me.

Irregardless, they were supposedly not a bad sounding little speaker.

I have never read any reviews about them.

[Gerry S]

Regarding CR and the "audiophile community"

A long time ago, I remember reading CR's testing methods. Many decades later, I read some of Mr Toole's articles/papers. In hindsite, CR's methods are probably better than nothing for the "novice" buyer. However, it's unrealistic to expect a CR reviewed speaker product to be entirely "thorough" or "scientific". CR's engineers probably have SOME acoustic background but nowhere close to that of professionals who specialize in this hotly-debated topic of rankings and accuracy.

Reading a CR report on automobiles and then compairing their findings to magazines like Car& Driver and similiar publications often lead to dramtically different results on the SAME CAR. CR's methods are meant for the "clueless consumer", while speciallist publications have specialist engineers and technicians who probably are avid hobbyist AND highly trained/experienced in their fields of expertise.

BUT, the more expert and highly trained, the more difficult it gets to be "objective" about things that made them "specilalist" in the first place. Experiecing and listening to music is " emotionally subjective". Trying to objectively and scientifically "quantify" an emotional experience is daunting. Imagine CR attempting to "accurately" quantify what "love" is in it's numerous forms, and then publish it.

I believe that Sean Olive and Floyd Toole is trying to do just that when it comes to ranking speakers and correlating their findings with scientifically accepted methods of measuring data. CR may take months to "rank" a dozen products while "specialist" may take longer to explore ALL the "nuiances" of just ONE product.

The longer and deeper the specilaist gets involved with the product they are tring to evaluate, the more likely they will become LESS "objective". Listening to music is an emotional process for virtually everyone who enjoys it. Audio "specialist" on the other hand have made it their passion and life's work, which may or may not correlate well with their "scientific findings".

I believe objectivity (CR) and enthusiasm (the specialist) are by definition almost mutually exclusive. Yet, both camps try to do both.

[Gerry S]

ADC was located in New Milford, CT.

I googled CT and found it's part of New England. Guess their speakers (ADC 303AX) wasn't considered a "classic" here on CLP. ADC isn't listed as a "brand" here.

[Carlspeak]

Some more info on ADC can be found here.

http://www.avsforum....dimage-speakers

[genek]

I googled CT and found it's part of New England. Guess their speakers (ADC 303AX) wasn't considered a "classic" here on CLP. ADC isn't listed as a "brand" here.

Brand forums are added in response to interest from members. There are plenty of other manufacturers of the "Classic New England" speaker genre that don't have a forum here. All that means is that there hasn't been much (or any) interest expressed in having one.

[dynaco_dan]

Hi Gerry and Gene

I started bugging, hinting, etc to Mark about 2004 - 5 for a Dynaco forum.

It was not in the cards back then.

After a few writeups, likely in the misc section, a Dynaco area was started eventually.

Looking back to 2006 we can see there has been more than a little interest in Dynaco.

As I had mentioned to Mark, if Gregdunn's website had a forum it would not be necessary to have one here as well.

If those interested in ADC start up some topics in, Other speakers, etc, for example, maybe there will be another section created down the road.

I would suggest looking at the Dynaco section, page 5 to see what and when it was started and where it is today.

[Pete B]

Hi Gene

The ADC 404's cabinet rear panel is nailed on with finishing nails, with the head still exposed far enough out for their removal. Yuch

At least if there were screws, it would have appeared a little more professional, to me.

Irregardless, they were supposedly not a bad sounding little speaker.

I have never read any reviews about them.

Hi Vern,

I have a copy of the 1973 "High Fidelity" "Buyers Guide" that has reviews of
the ADC 303AX, 303B, 404, and the 450A. All are well reviewed and a response
curve is provided for the 303B that is surprising smooth but lacks baffle step
compensation. If 6 dB of BSC was added it would be +/- a few dB from 80 to
7 KHz. Most speakers reviewed are nowhere near as flat. Unfortunate that the
HF response begins to roll off on axis at 7 KHz. The 303B is
significantly more efficient than most sealed systems and produces substantial
output at 80 Hz with lower distortion than the Small Advent but significantly
higher than the AR-2ax. The ADC has higher 3rd order distortion than 2nd
whereas the AR and Advent are opposite.

It is also worth noting that the KLH 33 has a very smooth/flat response in the
CBS lab measurements for a speaker of this timeframe. Curves were not
provided for all systems tested and I'm not sure if the 33 is similar to any
other KLH systems. Interesting that it is not sealed.

[soundminded]

I don't know why you continue to repeat this when it is patently untrue. The Toole tests have a number of listeners rank test subjects in a variety of performance areas: bass extension, response smoothness, etc and then the category numbers are totalled. He has been able to prove great consistancy across large numbers of test subjects and when the test groups have a large variety of loudpseaker subjects. He has proven the reapeatability of the numerical results, and SeanOlive especially has been able to show a high correllation between axial response flatness and smoothness and the ranking in the tests. The correllation between flatness and ranking alone makes it hard to think this is a preference ranking rather than an accuracy ranking. (Unless we just accept that accuracy is popular, a surprising but welcome result.) The methodology has been well published since before his time at Harman and further testing has only expanded its credibility. I don't know of any academics with serious concerns with the methods. Be aware that Harman is a large organization and Floyd and Sean design none of the Harman products. They do not design the Revel products, or any of the many JBL products. They are not speaker designers. Their role is to create the test facilities and suggest test methodologies and advise the engineering groups of their findings, but Kevin Voeckes at Revel or Greg Timbers (high end JBL products) can choose to follow their guidlines or not. As such any Harman product that you point out may or may not have been influenced by Toole and Olive. My understanding of the old Consumer Reports tests was that they relied on power response curves of the subject loudspeakers. Many papers along the way have shown that power response is at best an unreliable measurement (nearly irrelevant) and specifically that flat power response will not sound good, so it is not surprising that Consumer Reports rankings and Toole/Olive ranking would be at odds. David S.

"and the ranking in the tests."

There's the key phrase right there, the ranking. And what is that ranking about in the world of Sidney Harman/Floyd Toole, and Sean Oliver? The raning is about market preference, not about what engineered effort accurately reproduces the audible experience of live music. If most people had a preference for juke boxes, then juke boxes would have won the highest ratings.

The study of the physics and perception of sound, the engineering of systems to record and reproduce it to be as close an audible duplicate as possible, and the testing to see what comes close and what doesn't is a science. The study of what most people like best and willing to pay for to generate the highest possible profits is not a science, it's market research. Some people would like to confer the term science on it but it's only a pseudo science. Finding out that most people who buy small cars like them best if they are painted red doesn't produce a better car, just a better selling one.

[Carlspeak]

"and the ranking in the tests."

There's the key phrase right there, the ranking. And what is that ranking about in the world of Sidney Harman/Floyd Toole, and Sean Oliver? The raning is about market preference, not about what engineered effort accurately reproduces the audible experience of live music. If most people had a preference for juke boxes, then juke boxes would have won the highest ratings.

The study of the physics and perception of sound, the engineering of systems to record and reproduce it to be as close an audible duplicate as possible, and the testing to see what comes close and what doesn't is a science. The study of what most people like best and willing to pay for to generate the highest possible profits is not a science, it's market research. Some people would like to confer the term science on it but it's only a pseudo science. Finding out that most people who buy small cars like them best if they are painted red doesn't produce a better car, just a better selling one.

In the purist sense, there is some truth to what you have written. However, it begs the question: Why would Harman Int'l be willing to share the results of years of research and the undoubtedly megabucks invested, if those results could have been kept proprietary and clearly given H.I. an advantage in the marketplace?

[Gerry S]

Wish I recorded the Sean Olive meeting I attended (so I could review it thouroughly). But I truly believe that his findings and conclusions to be more than "market research". Like sociologist and psychologist, he attempts to correlate and quantify a partcular behavior/activity using established scientific methods and "tabulating" them. This is the only way I know to corellate objectively what we experience subjectively.

I consider "ranking" as an objective (scientific) way of attempting to "measure" an inherently difficult topic: pleaure (or the extreme of that; pain). As "audiophiles", we are distinctly "different" from the general music loving public. We tend to be very impassioned about our "hobby" to the point of exchanging verbal blows when someone challenges our "audio values" (and our "rationale" for sticking to them). Kinda reminds me of "religious zealotry" or "extremism".

I left the Sean Olive presentation with the firm impression that his work boils down to unbiased research. And just what is he reearching, and why ? So that in the future, the world in general may possibly have affordable audio products with universally recognized attributes that make music listening more "pleaurable". As it stands now, the "hi-fi-" industry is stagnant or vanishing.

The current economy probably plays a very large part for this decline. However, when "hi-fi" was at it's peak, "audiophiles" like us could be considered by OTHER "stereo equipment owners' (virtually all guys) as belonging to the "lunatic fringe". I believe that if and when the economy improves, Sean Olive's work will have made what WE take for "audio nirvana" to be a "mass market" experiance.

As it stands now, "hi-fi for the masses" is the I-Pod and similiar portable devices. Unless people like Sean Olive continue to find those common denominators that define "quality", we as a group will probably become dinosaurs (extinct).

BTW... the title of Sean Olive's presentation is something having to do with "young people" and what they subjectively "liked" listening to music thru an acoustically transparent curtain. Since the curtain was visually "hiding" the speakers being audtioned, test subjects DID NOT know the brand, price, physical size or appearance of the speakers they were audtioning. Audio "quality" was the ONLY parameter being "ranked".