 |
Newsgroups: rec.antiques.radio+phono
From: John Stone <jmse...@comcast.net>
Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:22:33 -0500
Local: Tues, Aug 28 2012 4:22 pm
Subject: Re: Where's The Logic
On 8/28/12 5:44 PM, in article
<nilknoc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
I don't equate low efficiency with low quality. AR speakers were meant for
> "John Stone" <jmse...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> On 8/28/12 12:56 PM, in article
>>> "John Stone" <jmse...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> Did you like the early AR speakers?
>> I thought the AR's were very good in bass performance for their day. But
> Bass was "good for their day?" Only if you took size into account. The AR
home audio, not sound reinforcement, and could play plenty loud with their acoustic suspension design and the available power in their day. You asked me about early AR speakers. I took "early" as the period from the first AR1 through the AR3a (mid 50's to late 60's). Thiele/Small parameters had not even been invented until the early 70's, and before that (and quite a long time after), most reflex systems were far better on paper than in real life. The aforementioned L100 being a case in point with a woofer with far too high Qts and Fs for the cabinet it was in. The result was a system with a 6dB peak at 70Hz and a steep 4th order rolloff below. A virtual "boombox" Whereas the AR3 could easily manage mid 30Hz bass- flat, and with low distortion. Yes, it was inefficient, but even with its small size, it could reach deeper in the bass than most, including even giant corner horn systems like Klipshorns. What are some of your examples of "vastly better" reflex systems of the day? You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| |||||||||||||