Re: Acoustic Research AR-3a...Karajan's Speakers?
Bill Anderson
I vaguely remember an advertisement with Miles Davis as an owner of
AR-3a's...
For their time they were very fine speakers. I had a pair of AR-5s that
I bought in high school. I'd still have them had they not been stolen
years ago...
Hope the thieves strained their backs carrying 'em away :-)
Norman M. Schwartz
The speaker was kind of SOTA for their time period. I owned their
predecessor, AR-3. Perhaps Karajan's ownership of the AR-3a partly explains
why most of his recordings sound as poorly as they do ;-)
tomdeacon
Right on.
They were NEVER SOTA, even for their time.
Always had a squeezed out sound, a bit like toothpaste which refuses to
come out of the tube. And they demanded huge power amplifiers.
People are now getting back to real efficiency in speaker design. Mine,
for example, can be driven to full volume with 1 watt. One of those
nice tube amplifiers with a pair of 300B tubes do the trick. And the
sound is completely effortless.
TD
William Sommerwerck
> predecessor, AR-3. Perhaps Karajan's ownership of the AR-3a partly
Is that a joke? For its era, the AR-3 was a relatively neutral speaker.
Lenny owned QUADs, and his recordings sounded awful -- because he insisted
they be mixed to sound like what he heard at the podium.
Bob Lombard
"tomdeacon" <tomde...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:1164755551.7...@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
up in the air and your ears up your ass at the same time. OK, so you've
proved me wrong again.
bl
ansermetniac
Where was his podium? In the Subway!!!
Abbedd
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood.
- HL Mencken
ansermetniac
ROTFLMAO
I am still waiting for Deacon to respond properly to MY last dig at
him. I wonder how he will repond to this
Abbedd
Bob Harper
at low volume they lost whatever transparency they had, and in the
apartment I had, low volume was my option. I replaced them with a pair
of Rectilinear 3s, and after that with a pair of Polk 10s (should have
bought 7s). All but the Polks were used, as befitted my economic status
at the time. I longed to own Rogers LS3/5As or KEF 104aBs, but... I'd
never heard Quads at that time. They would have been perfect.
Bob Harper
Norman M. Schwartz
"ansermetniac" <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:40npm2td4rj418rj0...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:45:24 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
> <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>> The speaker was kind of SOTA for their time period. I owned their
>>> predecessor, AR-3. Perhaps Karajan's ownership of the AR-3a partly
>>> explains why most of his recordings sound as poorly [sic] as they do ;-)
>>
>>Is that a joke? For its era, the AR-3 was a relatively neutral speaker.
>>
>>Lenny owned QUADs, and his recordings sounded awful -- because he insisted
>>they be mixed to sound like what he heard at the podium.
>>
>
> Where was his podium? In the Subway!!!
>
them.
William Sommerwerck
Why would he place his podium in a sandwich shop?
tomdeacon
In other words: Bob Lombard was stupid enough to fall for all that
HiFiStereoReview bunk about test results and bought a pair of these
dogs.
Pity you didn't invest in a pair of Quad ESLs, Bob. You wouldn't have
believed the difference real accuracy could bring to your enjoyment of
music.
And, you might have been able to resist yet another personal insult in
the process, which would have shown that you were on your way to some
degree of maturity.
As it is, and as it seems, you're still a kid in the schoolyard.
Go play with the other kids.
TD
William Sommerwerck
> have believed the difference real accuracy could bring to your
> enjoyment of music.
Though this is a legitimate criticism in principle, it needs to be pointed
out that the AR-3a cost "only" $450 per pair, while the QUAD ESL was $600 to
$800 per pair. It's easy to forget just how much money that was 40 years
ago. The QUAD also required more-expensive amplification.
Norman M. Schwartz
Quads are great midrange drivers. Get a stacked pair, add some Decca ribbons
and a pair of Hartley subs and with the right crossovers, pre-amps and
amplifiiers you have one great sounding speaker system. Without the
additions you have a "polite" midrange speaker, which makes everything sound
pleasant (even though it doesn't and shouldn't) and which doesn't stand up
to heavy use; wear and tear, and is easily damaged.
Norman M. Schwartz
"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:MKSdnYnO5fTX4_DY...@comcast.com...
new but the Quad would have been very costly to maintain, repair and made
functional.
Norman M. Schwartz
>> Where was his podium? In the Subway!!!
>
> Why would he place his podium in a sandwich shop?
>
>
ansermetniac
wrote:
>Fast
My bozaks stay in one place when they emit sound. I would love to see
your speakers move all around the room. Even if they were slow
Abbedd
ansermetniac
wrote:
>Stormin' Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
>>
>> Quads are great midrange drivers. Get a stacked pair, add some Decca ribbons
>> and a pair of Hartley subs and with the right crossovers, pre-amps and
>> amplifiiers you have one great sounding speaker system. Without the
>> additions you have a "polite" midrange speaker, which makes everything sound
>> pleasant (even though it doesn't and shouldn't) and which doesn't stand up
>> to heavy use; wear and tear, and is easily damaged.
>
>My mid-70s ESL57s (used by me since '95 - and acoustically modded) are
>anything but 'midrange' - and have been fault-free for over a decade.
>Bass goes down cleanly to 40Hz - treble up to at least 16kHz (~my
>limit).
>They're genuinely Transparent/Fast/Detailed/Uncoloured.
>AR speakers?
>I could've made something more impressive from Orange Boxes and a 1930s
>'full-range' unit.
>And those disintegrating foam surrounds!!!
>(Did I hear Bo(o)se..??)
Not all 3as had foam. The better ones had paper cones and last
forever.
Abbedd
tomdeacon
frankwm wrote:
> Stormin' Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
> >
> > and a pair of Hartley subs and with the right crossovers, pre-amps and
> > amplifiiers you have one great sounding speaker system. Without the
> > additions you have a "polite" midrange speaker, which makes everything sound
> > pleasant (even though it doesn't and shouldn't) and which doesn't stand up
> > to heavy use; wear and tear, and is easily damaged.
>
> anything but 'midrange' - and have been fault-free for over a decade.
> Bass goes down cleanly to 40Hz - treble up to at least 16kHz (~my
> limit).
> They're genuinely Transparent/Fast/Detailed/Uncoloured.
> AR speakers?
> I could've made something more impressive from Orange Boxes and a 1930s
> 'full-range' unit.
> And those disintegrating foam surrounds!!!
Correct.
My pair cost me 104 Pounds Sterling in 1970. I bought the Quad 33 and
303 to go with them.
Very sweet system.
I finally sold them on in 1992 in Los Angeles and I feel sure someone
is still enjoying these today, although I can't vouch for their
longterm use in the smoggy LA atmosphere.
My Thiel 2.2s were the first box speaker to challenge the Quad's for
transparency, and even those have given way the the handmade
Coincidents (with ribbon tweeter) I presently use, although I didn't
sell the Thiels, which function well in the computer room. Both can be
driven to greater volumes than the original Quad ESLs. I have to say
that I am tempted by the new Quads, but the price is far too steep for
me, I think.
TD
ansermetniac
wrote:
>"Fast" - as in "Transient Speed".
>
>As opposed to "Slow" - as in Moving Coil.
>
>Boozaks - aren't they the ones with the Twisted Top-End that Mercury
>Records used for 'monitoring' ??
>
>;~)
No, they are the ones with the flattest freq response and the best
imaging on the planet. That is, if you are listening to music and not
audio
Transparent, detailed, fast, etc. You are an audiphool. I laugh in
your general direction. Your comments on the ar 3a show what your
knowledge level of musical sound is. One thing about audiphools
though-- they seem to enjoy the phoney sounds that come out of their
speakers and care less about the gelt they have wasted on marketing
schemes. More power to them in their happiness
Have you ever heard an audiphool use the word "Balanced" to describe a
speaker. Of course not. They prefer the B & W 802s with the out of
balance mid and tweeters. If only they had pots like the 3a, maybe
they could have been balanced. I doubt it.
The makers of the finest mouthpieces ever made for any wind instrument
used "Balanced Sound" as one of their trademarks. Now who were they
again?
Bob Lombard
Hey Tom, As a member of the 'common working class' I saved through the
winter of '71-'72 (severely limiting my booze intake) to buy a pair of
AR5 speakers. Dump on a Pride Of My Youth, I will attempt to enlighten
you.
bl
William Sommerwerck
> your general direction. Your comments on the ar 3a show what your
> knowledge level of musical sound is. One thing about audiphools
> though-- they seem to enjoy the phoney sounds that come out of their
> speakers and care less about the gelt they have wasted on marketing
Sorry, but I've made plenty of live recordings, and I know what live sound
sounds like and what good reproduction is. Properly engineered planar
speakers are generally superior to cone-type drivers -- that is, what comes
out of them sounds more like what went into them. "Unfortunately", the laws
of physics are on the side of true planar drivers.
William Sommerwerck
pointed
>> out that the AR-3a cost "only" $450 per pair, while the QUAD ESL was $600
>> to $800 per pair. It's easy to forget just how much money that was 40
years
>> ago. The QUAD also required more-expensive amplification.
> Add to that with proper treatment the AR-3a could easily be made to sound
as
> new but the Quad would have been very costly to maintain, repair and made
> functional.
Assuming that's a correct evaluation (and it's debatable), what does it have
to do with sound quality?
20+ years ago, when QUAD introduced the ESL-67 at the SCES, I was most
impressed -- it was one of the best speakers I'd ever heard. I wish I'd
bought them.
ansermetniac
What does your statement have to do with mine. I was goofing on the
audiphools who use words suchh as detail transparent and fast that
have absolutely nothing to do with sound and you interpret that to
mean that planar is better than cone. Anyone who saud what that
audiophool said about the ar 3a knows nothing about musical sound
Abbedd
O
<anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
And the lesser ones had ice cream cones and took a licking?
-Owen, who still uses a pair of AR58's (or is it 52's, the bookshelf
size).
> Abbedd
William Sommerwerck
> >> your general direction. Your comments on the ar 3a show what your
> >> knowledge level of musical sound is. One thing about audiphools
> >> though-- they seem to enjoy the phoney sounds that come out of their
> >> speakers and care less about the gelt they have wasted on marketing
> >> schemes. More power to them in their happiness.
> >Sorry, but I've made plenty of live recordings, and I know what live
sound
> >sounds like and what good reproduction is. Properly engineered planar
> >speakers are generally superior to cone-type drivers -- that is, what
comes
> >out of them sounds more like what went into them. "Unfortunately", the
laws
> >of physics are on the side of true planar drivers.
> What does your statement have to do with mine. I was goofing on the
> audiphools who use words such as detail transparent and fast that
> have absolutely nothing to do with sound...
These terms are valid for comparing one speaker with another.
> I and you interpret that to mean that planar is better than cone.
> Anyone who saud what that
> audiophool said about the ar 3a knows nothing about musical sound.
I think we're a bit "lost" here. By modern standards -- or even the
standards of its day, which would have inlcuded the QUAD ESL and the KLH
Model 9 -- the AR-3 and AR--3a are not particularly detailed, transparent,
or "quick".
Some years ago I helped a friend -- whose interest was mostly jazz, with a
bit of rock and classical thrown in -- buy a hi-fi system. Instead of
telling him what to buy, I told him he could choose whatever he liked, but I
would have veto power -- that is, I would tell him what not to buy.
He wound up selecting Martin-Logan electrostatic speakers, and had a really
fine-sounding system.
ansermetniac
<grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> the AR-3 and AR--3a are not particularly detailed, transparent,
>or "quick".
You are a pathetic audiphool.
ansermetniac
wrote:
>ansermetbozniac wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:40:40 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
>> <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > the AR-3 and AR--3a are not particularly detailed, transparent,
>> >or "quick".
>>
>> You are a pathetic audiphool.
>
>You are a luvver of Constipated Sound.
>
>:~)
If constipated is your adjective for balanced actual sound, then I
agree.
tomdeacon
Bob Lombard wrote:
> Hey Tom, As a member of the 'common working class' I saved through the
> winter of '71-'72 (severely limiting my booze intake) to buy a pair of
> AR5 speakers.
When I was a child.....
You know the rest, Bob.
Dump on a Pride Of My Youth, I will attempt to enlighten you.
With difficulty. I refuse any attempts to enlighten me. Which is why I
eat foie gras, you see!!!
TD
tomdeacon
ansermetniac wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 03:40:40 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
> <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > the AR-3 and AR--3a are not particularly detailed, transparent,
> >or "quick".
>
> You are a pathetic audiphool.
This from the purest idiot on this newsgroup, our own little
Anserfuckingninny.
It is to laugh, of course.
TD
ansermetniac
wrote:
It is an honor to be labeled an idiot by the king of the bizzaro world
Abbedd
Norman M. Schwartz
Did anything ever sound BAD on a QUAD, even when it was in fact bad? It's a
very nice polite sounding speaker, I certainly could lear to live with them.
However, I chose and still use Maggies, (large and small, in different areas
and not at the same time.)
>
Norman M. Schwartz
"frankwm" <frankw...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1164902087....@j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Norman M. Schwartz wrote:
>>
>> Did anything ever sound BAD on a QUAD, even when it was in fact bad? It's
>> a
>> very nice polite sounding speaker, I certainly could lear to live with
>> them.
>>
> correctly.
> They initially sounded 'wrong' - in terms of integration + colouration
> (various resonances).
>
> Treble edge diffraction (from the bass panel edges + top/bottom edges)
> was removed using thin acrylic felt (w.dble-sided tape).
> That cured the 'venetian-blind' effect as one ran ones ear up/down the
> panel.
> An internal rear treble panel cavity resonance at the bottom was
> removed by pinning the new Quad felt so as to be equi-distant from top
> to bottom behind the panel.
>
> The most difficult problem was perceived treble/bass
> integration...there being a 'mismatch' in the acoustic environment
> ('feel') - even with new hessian rear frame insulation
>
> The cure there was to attached highly tensioned 2mm wool felt directly
> behind the bass panels (clear of the dust covers - just..) which
> dramatically resolved all problems - including the speakers 'rattling
> frame' which became quite 'dead'.
>
> Coupled with some added treble clamps they must be about as good as it
> gets (although I 'wanted' Acoustats 'X's some 25 years back..) - and
> are *anything but* 'polite'.
*On occassion*, can you play them really LOUD, or even moderately loud in a
largeish room, assuming the music is supposed to sound loud, without any
fear of causing them any damage? Or do you have to hold back?
> Maybe I should enrol them in this NG for having that 'attribute' !
>
Because they are polite (and are in need here) or because they are impolite
and might fit right in?
William Sommerwerck
>> transparent, or "quick".
> You are a pathetic audiphool.
I'd suggest you compare good planar speakers with AR-3as, and decide for
yourself.
William Sommerwerck
>> I was most impressed -- it was one of the best speakers I'd ever
>> heard. I wish I'd bought them.
I should add that, at that demo, the sound was quite "life-like" and not at
all "polite"..
> Did anything ever sound BAD on a QUAD, even when it was in fact bad?
> It's a very nice polite sounding speaker, I certainly could lear to live
with them.
> However, I chose and still use Maggies, (large and small, in different
areas
> and not at the same time.)
The Maggies are, more or less, a fraud, not being true planar speakers.
Electrostatic speakers have long been accused of being overly
"polite"-sounding. But politeness, per se, will not cover up severe
coloration, distortion, etc.
I've never had a chance to listen to any QUAD model at sufficient length,
with known-bad recordings, to properly judge. However, I do own Apogee
Divas, which are "superior" speakers for much the same reason ESL speakers
are, and although they do have a rather "polite" sound, bad recordings
really do sound bad.
ansermetniac
I do not like planar speakers. Ar 2as are actually better than 3as
especailly in the original version with the paper woofers. I will
stick with Rudy Bozak and his theories thank you please
JO
ansermetniac
wrote:
>ansermetniac wrote:
>> I do not like planar speakers. Ar 2as are actually better than 3as
>> especailly in the original version with the paper woofers. I will
>> stick with Rudy Bozak and his theories thank you please
>
>
>Googling Boozookas - I found this:-
>"Urban Dictionary"
>
>"". j-hat on da bozak
>
> Advice given to adolescents to remember to use a condom.
>
>Yo bitch, do I needs to put da j-hat on da bozak? ""
>
>Another of Rudies 'Theories'..??
>
>BTW - what I've now seen of the drive units would indicate that they
>are Absolutely Primitive.
Are you confusing them with Bose. the B199 woofer is amazing and will
last forever. And the b209 mid is the same with metal drivers.
Did you read the review of the concert grands in a recent stereophile.
I am not the only one who likes Bozak
ansermetniac
If they are anything like the 802 I will pass. Years ago, a dealer
talked my partner into buying a pair of 802s. After five minutes I
demanded he get them out of my factory. He of course complied and
lambasted the dealer for ripping him off. He said to me, "I don't
understnd , all the reviews are so wondrful yet they sound like shit.
The mids and tweets are so unbalanced to the woofer. how can they get
such good reviews"
ansermetniac
wrote:
>ansermetniac wrote:
>> Are you confusing them with Bose. the B199 woofer is amazing and will
>> last forever. And the b209 mid is the same with metal drivers.
>
>You just say which model that you use !
>The ones I've now seen (inc some on eBay) include the 200 range.
>God..talk about Shoddy.
>
>>
>> Did you read the review of the concert grands in a recent stereophile.
>> I am not the only one who likes Bozak
>
>Vintage units - and I've some - Midax/Trebax/Axiom.. are rarely
>constructed to a sufficient standard - or with real knowledge (other
>than 'Empirical' - not something that one should absolutely discount..)
>as to the units capabilities.
>Nor is consistency between units very high on the agenda.
>Will investigate further (my curiosity - for want of a better word -
>having been 'aroused').
>
>good evening/night/morning.
I have symhonies in storage and now use two sets of Rhapsodies in
parallel
Bob Lombard
"ansermetniac" <anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:vtvum213u0b5t42r8...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:42:08 -0800, "William Sommerwerck"
> <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>> the AR-3 and AR--3a are not particularly detailed,
>>>> transparent, or "quick".
>>
>>> You are a pathetic audiphool.
>>
>>I'd suggest you compare good planar speakers with AR-3as, and decide
>>for
>>yourself.
>>
>
> I do not like planar speakers. Ar 2as are actually better than 3as
> especailly in the original version with the paper woofers. I will
> stick with Rudy Bozak and his theories thank you please
>
> Abbedd
>
heard any; hope to. The AR2ax and AR5 are better reproducers except in
the lower bass than the AR3a. But - neither of them are as
'true-to-life' as some more modern speakers I have heard. At the moment
(it changes frequently) I am listening to Linaeum 'Towers' plus
subwoofer in my main system. Much more open soundstage, lovely clarity,
which I blame on the dipole tweeters. I use AR5 speakers in my workroom
system, so the comparison is not a matter of long-term memory. The AR5
sound is clean and wide-range, but it needs help from its surroundings
to open the soundstage up to 'real' conditions. I will say that in some
solo piano recordings the AR5 places me right there, about 10 feet from
the piano. Don't know if that's real, but I like it.
bl
ansermetniac
bozaks are ars with real drivers and much much better imaging. the ars
have pretty flat response but you have to sit in one particular spot
to hear stereo. With bozaks you can sit anywhere including behind them
Abbedd
JO
> On Fri, 01 Dec 2006 01:24:49 GMT, "JO" <no...@nihil.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"William Sommerwerck" <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:RN-dnQepQdDk5_LY...@comcast.com...
>>>>> the AR-3 and AR--3a are not particularly detailed,
>>>>> transparent, or "quick".
>>>
>>>> You are a pathetic audiphool.
>>>
>>> I'd suggest you compare good planar speakers with AR-3as, and decide for
>>> yourself.
>>>
>>Better yet, compare to a good dynamic such as the B&W 804.
>>
>
> If they are anything like the 802 I will pass. Years ago, a dealer
> talked my partner into buying a pair of 802s. After five minutes I
> demanded he get them out of my factory. He of course complied and
> lambasted the dealer for ripping him off. He said to me, "I don't
> understnd , all the reviews are so wondrful yet they sound like shit.
> The mids and tweets are so unbalanced to the woofer. how can they get
> such good reviews"
>
materials, etc. Now they rival electrostats for detail and clarity.
ansermetniac
So, you paid for speakers and had to redesign and rebuild them. Why?
Abbedd
JO
ansermetniac
>On Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:02:06 -0500, ansermetniac
><anserm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>No, they are the ones with the flattest freq response and the best
>>imaging on the planet
>
>Deaf as a rock.
>
>Andrew
Swift dunce
tomdeacon
Sipow...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 30 Nov 2006 04:27:59 -0800, "frankwm" <frankw...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >ansermetbozniac wrote:
> >> <grizzle...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > the AR-3 and AR--3a are not particularly detailed, transparent,
> >> >or "quick".
> >>
> >> You are a pathetic audiphool.
> >
> >
> >:~)
>
> reputations. Rather a muddy little mind who if he was half as witty as
> he thinks he is and less than half as deaf as he actually is would
> still be a hard of hearing dullard.
I see that others have come to the same conclusion I had several years
ago.
This guy is an idiot.
And we are even more idiotic to answer him.
Leave him in his corner, clutching a bunch of old Ansermet recordings.
TD