Who's still around?

 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Stamford, Connecticut USA

Post Number: 4551
Registered: May-05
Just dropping in to say hi to as many of my old friends as possible.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 18597
Registered: May-04
.

Not many left. Most got tired of spending money when they didn't find what they wanted. Quite a few never actually knew what they wanted, which always makes the search harder if you don't know what you've got or how to get to what you thought you had but didn't.

You know, the old "make a list of what your system does and what it doesn't do". When the only answer you have is hearing Dianna Krall's spittle as she opens her lips, where do you go from there?

A few have had serious health issues and hifi got lost. More than I care to think about have passed away.

A few have had jobs that were hit in the recession and hifi seemed stupid as an alternative to feeding their family.

A couple just simply grew up. At least one I know of found his final system and stopped looking.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Stamford, Connecticut USA

Post Number: 4552
Registered: May-05
Good to hear from you, Jan.

I was somewhat active over at David�s site when Nuck passed away. I heard about Frank Abela, but I don�t remember when nor how. Both were very good people.

I guess I fit into most of the things you talked about. My system hasn�t changed since I left. Bryston B60, Rega DAC, 1Xpression TT, Audio Physic speakers. It just sounds right to my ears, and chasing something else isn�t very logical. My Apple TV 1 is on its last leg, so I bought a Schiit Eitr USB-Coax converter and a Kimber coax cable so I could feed my DAC from my laptop. Sounds fantastic.

My daughters will be 8 and 6 within a few months. Not much time to sit and listen actively. What little spare time I have to myself is spent at karate. I�ve gotten back into about 4 years now. It was my biggest passion before I got into a career that didn�t leave me any time for it. Now that I�m a teacher, I�ve consistently got 2 nights a week I can go.

The economy�s allegedly doing great. Wouldn�t know it from my end. I�m making less than I was before the big collapse. What was that, 10 years ago?

And holy inflation! The gear I own has about doubled in MSRP since I bought it. The B60 was $2600 new when I bought mine. I poked around and saw it�s now $4k. And it�s the same exact model without changes. My 10x5 was $380; it�s currently $750!!! I wouldn�t be able to afford any actual upgrade even if I wanted one.

It�s been an interesting 7 years or so since I�ve been around here. I miss talking to the guys, you included. We talked about far more than stereos.

Hopefully all is well with you and your family.
 

Gold Member
Username: Magfan

USA

Post Number: 3509
Registered: Oct-07
Jan's obviously still here....and as knowledgable AND opinionated as ever.

I miss NUCK.

And haven't heard from Art for quite a while.

You BET. The good stuff is getting $$$. Magnepan is now making the 30.7 model which goes for around 30 large and is 2x of 'double' panels. OUCH!
The last revision of Pass Amps, from the X.5 series to the X.8 series resulted in $$$

About the ONLY bargain I see, is the 'Amp Camp Amp' which is 8x2 for power and available in a COMPLETE kit for about 330$ or so. I'm thinking about it and would recommend JAN give it a look, too. I remember the experiment with the MinWatt or whatever it was didn't work out well I suspect THIS would be a different and better outcome.
 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Stamford, Connecticut USA

Post Number: 4553
Registered: May-05
Good to hear from you, Leo.

I�d imagine there are some great values still out there. Probably just from brands I haven�t looked into. I haven�t kept up with what�s what, mainly because I�m quite content with what I have. Partly because it�s not really a priority anymore.

One company I see getting a lot of forum attention is Schiit Audio. I bought their Eitr USB-Coax converter because it seemed like a good cost to benefit ratio. It definitely sounded better than straight USB into my Rega DAC. Everything I saw was either a $10 no-name part on Amazon or something from a big name hifi manufacturer for several times what I paid. Is it a giant killer like the Schiit fanboys claim their other stuff is? No idea, as I haven�t tried any others. All I know is it made enough of a difference to justify its cost in my system.

And it looks prettier that the $10 Amazon junk would�ve looked in my rack. It�s silver metal case matches my stuff better and I feel good about myself having bought something the budget minded audiofools would accept
 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Stamford, Connecticut USA

Post Number: 4554
Registered: May-05
There should’ve been some smileys at the end of my last paragraph. Not showing up for some reason? And why are my apostrophes all messed up? Posting from my iPhone perhaps?
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Corvallis, Oregon United States

Post Number: 16556
Registered: Feb-05
Still here...infrequently but still here.
 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Stamford, Connecticut USA

Post Number: 4564
Registered: May-05
Great to see you, Art. It�s been a while.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Artk

Corvallis, Oregon United States

Post Number: 16557
Registered: Feb-05
You too, JR! Always good to see you around my friend.
 

Gold Member
Username: Kbear

Canada

Post Number: 1203
Registered: Dec-06
Hi everyone,

Not sure what prompted me to check out the Ecoustics forum. Guess I was just curious.

I post primarily on the Hoffman forum now. At some point things on this site just seemed to really slow down and they still seem that way. But I may pop in to check things out once in a while. Lack of discussion doesn't necessarily mean there is no value (often the opposite, as the Hoffman forums have their share of nonsense threads, especially the music section).

That's pretty impressive that your system hasn't changed at all, Stu! I still dabble in trying things out, this is a hobby after all and that's part of the fun, but I buy primarily used gear that I can sell for about the same dollar amount. Keeps things manageable.

I'd say my system really improved when I figured out the optimal placement in my room. When I think of how long it took it kind of upsets me. I moved to a diagonal arrangement and got the audio rack out from between my speakers. It necessitated a long run of speaker cables but luckily the affordable cables I bought (Analysis Plus) sound excellent. No need to look any further.

In fairness, I tried the diagonal arrangement before and it didn't really work out. But that was in a different corner of the room with the furniture laid out differently.

What this arrangement let me accomplish as well was making the room less of a factor. I went from having a wall right behind me (about a foot away) to having the back wall something like 8' away. All the equipment swapping in the world couldn't lead to the improvement in sound that this new setup yielded. Properly set up, the emphasis changed quite quickly from worrying about this or that that didn't sound quite right, to being able to simply enjoy the music, and to better evaluate how a component impacted the musical performance that I was listening to.
 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Stamford, Connecticut USA

Post Number: 4566
Registered: May-05
Great to hear from you, Dan.

I've had the same system for quite some time now, and I'm completely happy. In fact, it's honestly overkill as I don't sit and actively listen much anymore. One day when things slow down, it'll still be there.

But I actually bought an entirely new system...

Pioneer SX-3900 and Bose 201 Series 4. Those, along with a Nintendo 64 for a $25 donation at a trash to treasure sale at a church. I would've given more, but I had no idea if anything actually worked beyond lighting up.

The receiver is actually very good (hooked up to my Audio Physics). The 201s, not so much. But it's all going in the basement right next to my punching bag, so more than good enough. I'll use either my iPhone streaming music or my iPod as a source.

I'm keeping an eye out for a big pair of Cerwin Vegas. If I'm going 80s, might as well do it right!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 18689
Registered: May-04
.

Don't forget the disco ball and the white polyester suit.
 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Stamford, Connecticut USA

Post Number: 4567
Registered: May-05
Not sure about the polyester suit while hitting the punching bag, but I'll grab one next time I'm in a thrift store

Do you know anything about Acoustic Research AR3?

There's a local stereo shop that sells all used gear. They have several pairs, ranging from definitely seen better days to mint condition, cabinet-wise. The guy's been around quite some time and I'm pretty sure he's re-foamed the surrounds and gone through the electronics in all of them.

He's also got a few pairs of what google images tells me are Advent Legacy (original). All I know is they're post-Kloss, so people look down on them a bit. Do you know anything about them?

Both intrigued me. Not sure I want to put any of them in my unfinished dungeon basement, but then again a pair in already rough shape wouldn't be hurting anything. The pairs I'd consider have water rings on the top of the cabinets, stuff like that. I'm sure someone's wife thought they were a great place to put potted plants at one point or another.

I'd have asked for a listen and some info, but I didn't have much time. I was driving by and decided to pop in. The owner was chatting with some what I assume regulars and playing around with some reel to reel stuff.

I want an old pair of CVs or at least JBLs. The huge, 12 inch woofer type. Why? I don't know. But the local Craigslist and the like aren't turning up anything. Except for a really beat up pair of CVs for way too much money. I'm going to keep my eyes open for some garage sales now that the weather's getting better.

The aforementioned AR3 and Advents would be nice too. Kind of like owning something a little historical. I'm not after fidelity or anything. Just loud and fun. Not sure how the AR3 and Advents would fit that, but they'd have a coolness factor the CVs and JBLs don't have. None of these are going to break the bank nor get listened to critically.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 18690
Registered: May-04
.

If the AR3 is this model; https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1CAHKDC_enUS754US756&q=Acoustic+Research+AR3&t bm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjVy7DHrqDiAhUJDKwKHXH9CEoQsAR6BAgJEAE&biw=91 1&bih=443, you are looking at a speaker that is approximately 75 years old. Hard to tell what might have been done - or not done - to a 75 year old speaker system.

I ask about the model because AR has been through model #'s a few times in their long history.

As you probably know, AR was founded by Vilchur and Kloss. They were not, however, the first designers to patent the "acoustic suspension" system though they were the first designers to bring a workable system to market. Their foundational idea was to create a "small" speaker with extended bass response which would displace the large vented enclosures needed to create "bass" in a consumer product.

To do so they took the concept of an infinite baffle - a technique for speaker mounting that was highly familiar to audio buffs of the day who often mounted drivers in sealed closet doors, in a sealed off fireplace or even within a wall or floor which all would act as a baffle larger in every direction than the lowest frequency pressure wave created by the driver. AR simply created a system in which the rear going pressure wave of the driver could not escape the cabinet, thus creating a pseudo-infinite baffle system. Acoustic stuffing material inside the enclosure showed the driver a physical impedance (common to the enclosure volume of a large vented system) than actually existed in the footprint of a sealed system. However, even a relatively small opening in the cabinet's sealed box would disrupt the bass performance of an "acoustic suspension" enclosure system - another issue you might consider when judging a 75 year old speaker. It's highly unlikely a 75 year old speaker has been in constant use and storage can always be the vintage component's worst enemy. Cabinets were almost always simple veneers over a particle board structure. While particle board and the later adaptation of MDF can be considered "environmentally stable" materials, temperature and humidity variations can affect the fit and finish of an enclosure's stability over the decades. That said, I have a pair of Original Large Advents stored in my attic and they do look to be in quite good condition as far as the cabinets are concerned.

Trade offs from what had been the norm in speaker systems until AR's entrance would include:

1) Slightly lower electrical sensitivity as the rear wave from the low frequency driver was not allowed to add to the in room SPL measurement of the system. ("free field" measurements were still a few years off and not easily made - an late '70's KEF brochure showed their measurement system which was literally located in a field far away from room boundaries). The sensitivity figure stated in theory is a minus 3dB vs a vented system or the same amount gained by doubling the wattage output of the amplifier. The average consumer oriented tube based amplifier sold at the time was still only about 5 watts and a large amplifier would have been measured at 15 watts or so from an EL34 tube set in a push/pull configuration. Thus, AR in a way began the horsepower race in amplifier measurements though that "fame" certainly owes more to the introduction of the soon to be ubiquitous solid state, direct coupled amplifier (which subsequently also allowed Japan [Sony, Pioneer and Sansui] to ship lighter amplifiers to the very desirable US market).

2) The low frequency electrical load impedance of a sealed system has only one large "hump" shown to the amplifier in contrast to the two bumps seen in any vented system's measurements. Since amplifiers were still tube based and included output transformers, connection to an amplifier was slightly less difficult for excellent transfer function than that of a vented system. Most speakers though only sold with a "nominal" impedance spec as measurements were rather sparse at the time. The days of including impedance and phase shift in the calculation of a speaker suitable match to any amplifier were still a ways away from being discussed and since there were no direct coupled amplifiers at the time, no one really gave this measurement much thought.
Audiophiles/music lovers did tend towards reading more about their hobby than is common today and this is where information was gathered regarding various "advances" in the technical areas of audio reproduction would have been found.

3) A sealed system produces a slightly higher system resonant frequency than does a vented system. This is the frequency where the system reaches its lowest frequency output before roll off and also the point where the low frequency driver stands still and the resonance of the enclosure does the work.

However, a sealed or IB system has a second order roll out beneath system resonance, in other words a -12 dB per octave roll out which results from the back pressure wave being eliminated as an in room contributor. The stated roll out for any vented system is -24dB per octave due to cancellation effects. Therefore, while the sealed/IB system has a slightly higher system resonance, it can produce usable low frequency response well beneath that of a comparably sized vented system.

4) The sealed system, in contrast to either a more traditional IB or any vented system, uses the enclosed air inside the cabinet to control the transient response of the low frequency driver rather than using the electro-mechanical control provided by the magnet's force in a vented system. Theory says a sealed system has better transient response in the low frequencies than either alternative system though the Qts (alignment) of the system still allows for system to system variation in this area. Using the Fletcher-Munson theories a speaker designer can produce a sloppy sealed system or a very "tight" response from the system. Alternatively, the BBC designed LS3/5a system used the sealed enclosure to create a slight bump upward in response at approximately twice the system roll out of the enclosure. Human perception being what it is, the slightly louder bump in response through the 80 to 120 Hz range gave the subjective impression the shoebox sized speaker was capable of deeper bass response than could be measured at an objective level.

While Vilchur stayed with AR for most of its glory years, Kloss went off to found KLH, Advent and had a hand in the original Boston Acoustics line before moving on to the Novabeam large screen TV and eventually returning to found Cambridge SoundWorks. Virtually any decent American built acoustic suspension system built in the '50's through the mid '80's would have come from the Boston area and had ties to the MIT graduates who either studied under Vilchur or used his theories as a jumping off point for their own designs. Therefore, a good many sealed system designs from those decades will have a largely comparable "East Coast" sound balance.

They competed in the "audio salons" of the day against mostly "West Coast" speakers coming from manufacturers such as Altech, JBL and Bozak (though Rudy Bozak's company retained it's production facilities on the East Coast). Given the general qualities of sound produced by the sealed vs the vented designers, sealed systems were typed (negatively marketed by competitors) as "classical music" systems while the vented enclosures, with their slightly higher measured electrical sensitivity, became "rock and roll" speakers at a time when the "audiophile" community included younger buyers with disposable incomes who listened to the "popular" music of the day.

When Holt began Stereophile his opinion was no system's performance could be judged using amplified instruments as a reference, which, of course, left out most rock music. Each variation of the Boston based lines founded by Kloss had by that time reached the "most popular speaker" in America based on sales numbers. Where the West Coast designs tended toward a frequency response that measured as "punchy" with obvious peaks and troughs throughout the total system response, the average sealed system and the accompanying East Coast sound proved to be highly adept at representing what was on the recording.

By the early '60's solid state amplifiers were capable of greater than 25 watts of measured output and the matter of sensitivity was no longer an issue other than in the showroom where the speaker that played louder was typically judged to be the "better" speaker when in room output levels were not carefully matched.

.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 18691
Registered: May-04
.

So that's the general run down on sealed speaker systems. The AR3 more specifically is a product of its time.

Stereo recordings were scant and infrequent when the speaker was introduced. Mono recordings remained on the market well into the mid '70s and many of the original "Golden Era" recordings were only available at first in that format. Early "stereo" recordings often showed off the single most important value of the format - two channels. Heavily panned sound sources hovered around each speaker with a not too unusual but certainly obvious hole in the center of the sound field that might have been occasionally filled in by instruments moving through the "sound stage".

Obviously, audiophile terminology such as "soundstage" and width and depth, 3-D imaging and such were not considered important to the presentation of the music. "High Fidelity" was based on values which related to more basic live music values such as frequency balance, temporal accuracy and dynamic extension. As I've said, before the reviewers began to dictate what buyers should listen for, the only thing designers had to go with were those values which actually related to the music rather than the recording.

While reel to reel tape was a somewhat viable source player in the 1960's, the more convenient turntable - often a changer - was the most likely source player for a system built around a pair of AR3's. That fact naturally led Vilchur to design the original AR Turntable which, while it exists as the base around which hundreds of other suspended sub-chassis tables would be designed over the coming decades, wouldn't be particularly familiar to today's audiophile buyer.

Early versions of dome drivers were common in the East Coast designs though they too would not seem too "modern" today. When Kloss introduced the Original Large Advent two way system in the mid '60's, the upper frequency response limit was stated as 12kHz. That was an improvement over his own earlier design of the KLH 6. When questioned about the spec, Kloss pointed to the amount of information vs noise/distortion produced by the recordings of the day. Dolby noise reduction was not yet available for even the best recordings made with the best available components and usable response above that 12KHz spec was often too muted by non-musical data. Therefore, high frequency extension beyond the highest fundamental frequency produced by any acoustic instrument was detrimental rather than beneficial to listening pleasure according to Kloss. While the designers of the day were often skilled electrical engineers, a lot of design was based on what sounded good rather than simply what measured best. Vented systems were still waiting for the Thiel/Small parameters and therefore were more often than not true "cut and try" systems or simply newer drivers built around existing and proven boxes - or vice versa.

So a dome driver of the AR/KLH/Advent manufacture was blessed with wide, controlled dispersion which more accurately mimicked that of an acoustic instrument vs the more ragged, highly on-axis oriented dispersion of the average cone driver found in the West Coast designs. Given the preponderance of horn loaded high frequency drivers in the upper range of the West Coast designs, the argument for somewhat restricted high frequency response was balanced against the inevitable spurious resonances and distortions added by the typical 1950's horn.

Of course, if you are considering a 75 year old speaker as a primary system, you might want to be aware of the fact the speaker was designed at a time when specs were very different than today and musical balance was more focused on a convincing, if technically restricted, capability from the entire system. If a source player typically paired with an AR3 speaker was not capable of reaching the highest octaves due to noise and distortion and the general quality of components of the time, then it would have been a poor choice to simply point out those deficiencies by exceptional speaker design well beyond its time.

That, however, is not how audio progresses toward more "accurate" reproduction of the live event. Being a boomer gives me the advantage of saying the heyday of AR and Advent were times when great designers were making tremendous advancements in music reproduction. It was also a time of great innovation in manufacturing which introduced new and better materials to the audio designer.

While the US speaker designers were standing pat on box speakers, across the Atlantic Peter Walker was introducing his revolutionary Quad electrostatic, which lacked any common form of enclosure. I can still remember the first time I listened to music played through a pair of original Quads. I would say that is the single most memorable moment I have experienced in audio. The boxless Quads had an openness which could not be matched by any box speaker no matter the driver type or the cleverness of the designer. Music simply existed within the room and even with the recordings of the time, often extended well beyond the physical boundaries of the speakers themself. The impression was not of moving from a steam engine to an internal combustion design but rather moving from a horse and buggy to a jet airplane. It would be several more years before the KLH 9's offered the same quality of sound to the typical (though still well heeled) US audio buyer. This though was the very beginning of a listener wanting a speaker that didn't sound like the box that held the drivers.

All that is to say, "soundstage" was not a value an audio reviewer of the late '50's and early '60's placed at the top of their wants and desires. That's not to say the typical boxes sold didn't produce "listenable" soundstage values. Actually, the Double Advent system driven by a 300 watt McIntosh amplifier in a friend's room knocked me down with realism that I easily accepted as being present at a Grateful Dead concert. The point being, audio has advanced largely by removing impediments to "realism". However, until you've heard that window being wiped clean, you are quite content with a slightly smudged version.

If you decide to audition the AR's, I would suggest you first adjust your priorities away from all the audiophile buzzwords which have filled the subjective review magazines and web sites since the speakers first hit the market.

I'll use an example I've told about before to explain the way to think about the audition.

My only real "muscle car" was a 1972 Chevelle Super Sport. It was quick and it was fast and rather gorgeous to look at in fire engine red with blacked out grill and 70 series tires all around mounted on "mag" wheels. Not many cars in my area could come close to keeping up with that car in the 1/4 mile.

It also got 10 mpg when gas was $0.35 a gallon. No power steering or brakes and certainly no AC. It came with an AM radio and I "upgraded" to an under dash 8 track. It did one single thing very, very well - it went in a straight line very, very rapidly to where I pointed it - as long as that "where" was straight ahead.

By 1976 there was a gas shortage and fuel prices were going up. My last fill up with the Chevelle was $0.50 a gallon, which seemed outrageous at the time. The Chevelle was no longer a practical car for the daily commute I had. I traded the Chevelle on a Honda Civic with their CVCC engine producing about 90 Horsepower mated to a four speed manual transmission. I thought my fun days were over and it was time to get sensible about cars.

What I found was the Honda's 91" wheel base, light weight and strong mid-RPM torque could go into a corner about 10 mph faster than the Chevelle would have been able to manage and it could come out and use the engine's torque to end up about 10 mph faster with a head of steam pulling it forward. I'd found a different type of fun.



The AR3's are classic audio just as the Chevelle SS is classic muscle car. They are what was and not what is. Would I enjoy getting back in my Chevelle? I think so, there's simply no substitute for that generation's raw exuberance for "grunt". Would I want the Chevelle as a daily driver today? No. It was what it was and that's the only way to think about that car.

The AR's are equally about "grunt" as they could knock off any large JBL when it came to room shaking 35 Hz bass extension when paired with a decent 30 watt amplifier. The JBL's played louder and that was where the AR gave way with tweeters that frequently got burned out by clipped amplifiers. No telling what tweeter/crossover repairs have been made on 75 year old speakers.

If you audition the AR's use a system they were designed around. Maybe a Mac MC 275 and an AR table with a Shure V-15 MM cartridge. An original Mercury Living Presence LP. A pre amp with multiple tone controls and a loudness compensation would do. Zip cord is fine for speaker cables that connect with nickle plated screw type posts and cheap
nickle plated RCA's will do. The AR's either fit in a bookshelf or were placed on the floor, likely without any stands other than to tilt them upward toward the listener. Spacing wasn't critical other than wide enough but not too wide. Think '61 Chevy Impalla with a 409;https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpZqs-w19qA or maybe a Studebaker Champion.

Enjoy the ride.


.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 18692
Registered: May-04
.

"He's also got a few pairs of what google images tells me are Advent Legacy (original). All I know is they're post-Kloss, so people look down on them a bit. Do you know anything about them?"

Basically, how do you improve on a classic? The Legacy model was simply Advent moving on after Kloss had long departed for Novabeam territory. Trying to stay relevant in a market that had become crowded with lots of products from other countries (the British sound and the Japanese sound [Pioneer HPM-100's that tried too hard to look like JBL Centuries]) and lots of "Yeah, I can do that" boxes that boomed and hissed at a louder volume than the Advents could manage.

Marantz Imperial 7's and BIC 6's are "classics" of the time for boom and hiss. JBL was out marketing Altec which had slipped into more commercial appeal. Cerwin Vegas were cheap takes on the boom boxes and mostly sold by the not quite mid-fi stores.

The Legacies are not a bad speaker but, as you say, they're not a Kloss designed Advent. Give 'em a listen if you want, they're going to be more like today's speakers than they are like the Original Large Advent. One thing about the original Kloss and Vilchur speakers was their obvious similarities between systems. With the success of the Original Large Advent, Kloss decided to build a "Small Advent" that had the exact same sound and bass extension in a box half the size of the Large Advent. He did it and we often compared the two systems while asking if the client could tell which speaker was playing. After Kloss and Vilchur were no longer in charge of design, models drifted toward a flavor of the month sound that was more about what a speaker this size and in this price range should sound like. Like walking into Best buy today.

Kloss' Advents sounded like his KHL's and his AR's. You were simply picking the best between more or less equals. The designers from Advent began Boston Acoustics and had Advent charge the magnets on the first generation bass driver. EPI and the original Genesis line all came from the same school, they all knew each other and they all shared lots of similarities. Mostly I'd say, all the designers heard music in the same venues and that shaped their idea of what music was and how to reproduce it in a speaker. You could line them all up and point and not have a bad speaker.

That did change somewhat when Kloss moved on and AR became a more corporate line. But the spirit is there if not the sense of "this is what music sounds like to me" found in the earliest Boston based lines. Mostly I'd say the lines suffered from far more competition and faster moving changes in speaker production than in poor design. They'd be more than fine for a basement system.

If you found a pair of AR 10's from the mid-'70's, those were the speakers everyone listened through after the store closed.


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Stamford, Connecticut USA

Post Number: 4568
Registered: May-05
Thank for all that information, Jan. It's all pretty interesting.

The shop they're all in is a great place that I think you'd really appreciate. It's the Stereo Workshop in Clifton Park, NY. The owner has been around for a good 30 years or so. I'd be willing to bet most of his business is repair and restoration type stuff. He's got so much stuff all over the place in the front of the store that you've got to move stuff around to figure out exactly what's laying around. I'd be surprised if the speakers in question weren't refoamed and recapped. And if he said they were or gave a reason why they weren't, I'd take him at his word. You don't stay in business that long and have that reputation by not being true to your word.

There were several pairs of the AR3. Nothing museum quality by any means, but it's not that type of place. In a good way. They appear to be 60's or possibly 70's vintage to my untrained eye. The only way to pin down a manufacture date would be serial numbers or the like. But they're definitely not some sort of modern day reissue.

Another one they had that you mentioned but I didn't was EPI. I know nothing of them other than what you just wrote.

I'm definitely not looking for audiophoolery here. Even if I was, none of that stuff is going to work in my basement. I'm not going to get pin point imaging, huge soundstage, et al. I'm looking for the '70 Chevelle SS, not the '72. I like the dual headlights better than the single headlights.

I'm just looking for deep, tight bass, warm mids, and clear highs (insert sh!t eating grin here). Basically, I want something that doesn't sound broken, will go loud enough, won't be pretentious, and won't break the bank. I've always liked the look and sound of the old stuff. The stuff my parents had when I was growing up. They had a certain charm to them. Not hifi in the audiophool sense, but no nonsense great sound. When I walked in and saw the stuff in that shop, it was stuff I've always liked and wanted. His shop is great in the sense that you've got no way of knowing what's going to be in there. I'm sure I could ask him to keep an eye out for something specific, but I'd probably be waiting for a while and other similar stuff would come and go.

I'm going to go back in within the next week or two and listen to some stuff and find out what he's done to what. Most of the stuff you talked about is all within the same ballpark of price. And none of it is anywhere near the absurd prices I've seen this stuff selling for online.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 18693
Registered: May-04
.

"I'm looking for the '70 Chevelle SS, not the '72. I like the dual headlights better than the single headlights."

Then, let's say, you found a Pontiac, Oldsmobile or Buick with that same body. Buy it. The most significant thing for many buyers would have been the trim level of each line, the generalities were all the same. They were all built on the same frame and with the same essential line up of drive trains. The most significant reason IMO for choosing the Chevy SS over the Oldsmobile 442, other than brand loyalty, was the simple fact Chevys were the inexpensive line in comparison and that gave them the advantage for the hot rodder of less spent on the car meant more funds available for the after market upgrades. For the most part, that was what made the first generation of Road Runners popular, the base model was stripped down but came standard with a four barrel 383 cid engine and a 4 speed, stripes and a funky horn. The bench seat, vinyl floor mats and steel wheels and "skinny tires" came standard too. All those items that would have been torn off and upgraded for racing were left to the buyer. The MSRP was about $400 cheaper than a same year Chevelle SS and almost 1/4 less than a 442 or Buick GS-1.

A set of headers for the Chevy engine could be purchased for under $100 because every manufacturer of speed parts produced headers for Chevys. It had an advantage at the strip due to its higher HP to weight ratio over the other GM models where the Buick had the least advantage.

For the others, headers were upwards of $100 and you had fewer options to choose between. Many non-engine items often swapped between lines, I actually had a set of Pontiac wheels on my Chevelle. Same offset despite Pontiac's famous "wide track" design and the same bolt pattern.

That's the story of GM in the '50's through to the late '70's when Pontiac and Olds began to be fleet sales models. It was a scandal in the '80's when Cadillac used a Chevy engine in one of their cars that was based on a very dressed up Nova.

And that's the story of the "East Coast" speaker designers. AR, then KLH and then Advent were the big dogs in their time. Each had the "best selling speaker in America" at one time. Kloss's Advent was the end of that era though from Advent other lines were created which all shared similar designs and thus overall sound.

There was one exception to that rule, an EPI model of the late '70's which broke new ground in box design. While EPI built many box type speakers that were largely the same as an Advent or AR, KLH, Epicure or Genesis of the day, the beginnings of more accurate designs were coming to the front edges of speaker design. Where the '72 GM products were the last true muscle cars before being hobbled by smog controls, a general move upwards in trim levels making the cars heavier and less geared toward speed vs comfort and "truth in advertising" HP measurements, speaker designers were pushing forward with tweaks to their basic designs that would carry them into the '80's at a time prior to CAD.

Still created mostly by ear and then by slide rule, EPI turned out a strange looking system created by three boxes stacked one atop the other. It was a design I still see on occasion at the local audio shows. The largest box contained the woofer and all enclosures were built with non-parallel sides truncating into a top enclosure which barely contained the dome tweeter. The entire system, when stacked together, formed a tall, slim pyramid with the tweeter intentionally placed at approximately ear level for a seated position.

Rather than using grills that fit inside the raised edges of the box, which would have been common with most other designs, the enclosures were each formed with a completely flat front baffle to which you attached the chamfered grills, much in same manner as today's systems, which sat slightly proud of the baffle and were intended to be removed for serious listening. Played with the grills removed the mid and upper frequency drivers were largely removed from refraction and defraction effects due to the flush mount drivers.

We were still a few years away from "stand mounted" systems but the EPI system represented one of the first possible manufactured "sub/sat" systems in that the bass module could, if the listener preferred, be placed separately from the location of the mid/high enclosures. This allowed the bass system to be positioned in the room for the best bass response without forcing the upper frequencies to be compromised by a "same as" placement. While the X-over was completely passive without gain controls or adjustable filters, this was a move one step further in the direction of removing the smallest elements of dirt from the acoustic window. It was theoretically similar to the British LS3/5a sitting on top of a non-BBC designed woofer enclosure meant to extend its low frequency reach as designers were beginning to hear the values of a more realistic, rather than just a "stereo", "soundstage" and "imaging" as heard from the boxless panel systems. (The AR-3a did have a separate connection for driving just the low frequency driver as a "subwoofer" of sorts added to your existing speakers - though satellite sized boxes beyond the occasional LS3/5a, KEF 101 monitors and the JR's were uncommon in the US unless your wallet demanded you seriously degrade the dynamic potential of the system.)

The original Quads had shown what was capable when the box did not interfere with the upper frequencies. Despite being a system situated on the floor, the Quads never really had bass extension which could suit American tastes in the bottom octaves. The much larger KLH 9's brought that to America. As dipoles however, both systems' tonal balance was subject to bass wave cancellation effects. Both systems were large, difficult to place in the average domestic room and relatively expensive for the day.
Add to that both required fairly stout amplifiers (the Quads preferred Walker's "current dumping" amps) though both had issues with damage done at peak levels in the typically larger American listening rooms.

Magnepan was starting up as an alternative to the electrostats, Infinity (one of those "hey! I can do that" lines that began in a garage) had been using electrostatic panels in their earliest designs - and almost sank before they could swim with the costs of replacing burnt out panels - before settling on the Heil Air Motion driver and the original Dalhquist DQ-10's were all exploring transparency in new and unique designs. At the same time McIntosh was selling conventional box speakers fitted with wood slatted decorative grills and an optional active EQ which had its greatest benefit in low frequency extension when paired with the 125 lb. MC-300 solid state amplifier.

On the mostly BBC designed British side, which had a fairly strong influence by that time in the US market due to the "socialism" of the British government supporting advanced designs in audio with funding beyond what any US manufacturer could match, models such as the JR149 presented American listeners with a re-thinking of the LS3/5 a system with the same driver configuration placed now in a compact cylindrical, aluminum enclosure. KEF was breaking new ground with their innovative designs as was Celestion with better quality drivers used in better thought out enclosures. A pair of Celestion BC3's would be the '70's British version of the AR's, just with bass more suited to British sized rooms and listening tastes in music.

https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120358447

Gradually the design by ear club was being taken in a new direction which realized the "sins" of their forefathers. Each step forward though did pay attention to the primary rule of the East Coast and the BBC based designs; get the mids right and the rest will follow.

Of course, not a single one of these speakers could be repaired to OEM status today if you got a little "exuberant" with the vc one night, so they are not the CV equivalent of boom and hiss that represented the "I use Peavey amps in my garage band" sound of the mid-80's.

Power handling was still what separated all of these audiophile speakers from the mass market. The DQ-10's using cone drivers played phenomenally loud but also stopped quite suddenly. They were also partial to amplifiers such as the Phase Linear 700, Citation 16 (the coolest looking of the bunch), the MC-300 and, of course, the original Ampzilla all of which could deliver sufficient Voltage and Amperage on peak demands to make certain any opposing driver was sent to its doom.

Now, if you could find an original pair of OHM F's with the inverted Walsh driver, that would be 70/80's nostalgia done right! Amazing speakers for their time and IMO pretty easily comparable in many values to the best available today up through the highest highs. They loved the 300 watt Mac but we could display them with a 40 watt HK receiver. While you're not looking for "hi-fi" values, the F's would be like having a de Tomaso Pantera in your basement.

A pair of Dynaco A-25's with their aperiodic bass loading would be an option.

And, of course, the most recognizable speaker of the time was the JBL L-100; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XiJzLfxWooo

The L-100 was the primary competition for a Double Advent set up in the store I worked in at the time. Four Large Advents cost less than two JBL's. The JBL's are rated at 4 Ohms though and probably not the best match for the Pioneer.

JBL also sold a L-36 and a L-26 at lower cost than the L-100. Neither of those speakers sold well in our store. The larger and higher priced definitely floor mounted L-65's had a smoked glass panel on their top which upped their "cool" factor by several magnitudes (are you seeing what JBL was selling consumers at the time? ) and did a good job as a cutting board for certain illicit drugs which were highly popular at the time. Though they weren't that different in sound from the L-100's, just louder with a bit more thump due to room placement, they had their own special appeal to a certain crowd in the Reagan '80's.

In comparison, the CV's would represent the kid who just got a job at McDonalds' first speaker purchase. IMO nostalgia only goes so far.

(I also still have a pair of the original Boston Acoustics A-200's. A fairly unique design that has as very shallow but wide cabinet meant to sit up against the wall and form a psuedo- infinite baffle system. They need new woofers now but they're your's if you want to pay for shipping. They are a light oak cabinet with beige grills. I mod'd them with Dynaco tweeters.)


.
 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Stamford, Connecticut USA

Post Number: 4569
Registered: May-05
Thanks for all the information, and for the offer, Jan. I'd love to take you up on the A-200s, but I'm quite sure shipping those from Dallas to Albany, NY is going to be quite expensive. If I was closer, I'd be all over them.

I've got to finish cleaning up the basement. The tenants vacated the apartment (2 family house) and finally got their stuff out of there. Well, everything they wanted, leaving it to me to clean up their garbage anyway. I'll spend part of the upcoming holiday weekend cleaning up and rearranging stuff, and I'll pop in and out of that local shop to play around with some stuff and see if they got anything new in.

Thanks again.
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 18694
Registered: May-04
.

Good luck.
 

Gold Member
Username: Stu_pitt

Stamford, Connecticut USA

Post Number: 4572
Registered: May-05
I took an unexpected turn with the speaker search. I heard a bunch of different vintage speakers like AR and Advent, but they all had this quality to them that's hard to describe. All I can really say is they had a touch of grey to their sound. They're quite enjoyable and I could easily live with them for my basement purposes.

The unexpected turn is I found a pair of M-Audio BX8 Carbon Black used at my local Guitar Center. I have a pair of BX5 D2 that I bought a few years ago for my classroom and background music at parties outside my home. They serve those purposes quite well. When I heard them I wanted the BX8, but they were too big and too expensive, at $500 a pair vs $250. I picked up a used pair of BX8s for less than a new pair of BX5s.

Studio monitors get a bad rap from hifi guys. The BX series are great IMO. They're clean, detailed, and musical. The BX8s have a cleanliness, quickness and punch to them that would embarrass some hifi speakers. They're certainly not the last word in imaging and soundstage, but that's not what I need here. I need clean, uncongested, and loud without breaking up while doing so. I tried the BX5s, but they struggled in the SPL department while hitting my punching bag.

The BX8s have an 8" kevlar woofer, 1 1/2" silk tweeter, 60 watts to the tweeter, and 70 watts to the woofer. Since the Pioneer receiver has no preamp outs, I've got a Parasound Zpre3 that's on the way from Audio Advisor. It'll do a few line level inputs and remote control. Remote volume control is a great thing when working out.

The Zpre should be here Wednesday. I still have my old Theta Cobalt 307 DAC that I'll connect too. Can't wait to hook it all up!
 

Platinum Member
Username: Jan_b_vigne

Dallas, TX

Post Number: 18702
Registered: May-04
.

"Studio monitors get a bad rap from hifi guys."

Audiophiles are snobs?! Surely you jest, sir.

Actually, there have been many a studio monitor adapted to home use by the high end crowd and vice versa. That says nothing about the quality of studio monitors of course. For a while the Yamaha NS10 was a speaker dealers could not keep in stock and Yamaha could not produce in large enough quantities.

It became a ubiquitous fixture in any photo of a engineer seated at their mixing board any where in the world. Still there from what I see. Home users bought them by the palette load. Studios had several pair on hand for spares just in case. Personally, I have sold far too many to admit to as I was always glad to see a pair leave the store. I just didn't want to be forced into demonstrating their ... uh, "values". I don't think that alone qualifies for "snob" assignment as the NS10 was hated by just as many people as it was loved by others. The sounds of squealing tires and shattering glass in a five car pile up is my best recollection of the Yamaha mini-monitor and that, IMO, is being kind.

While I've heard a few unforgivably bad monitors sold in music shops, with modern day design techniques and production materials, it's not that difficult to come up with a quite acceptable speaker that doesn't cost what the audiophile pedigree adds to a system. If you're listening in the relative near field that suits a monitor, then most other speakers won't be as satisfying.


The "grey" you heard from the vintage speakers was likely due to the moss that has grown on 75 year old drivers - and the fact that's how most vintage drivers typically sound to modern ears.

Smoke 'em if you got 'em and good luck with your new speakers. Hopefully you tested them in the shop for how they take a punch.


.
« Previous Thread Next Thread »

Add Your Message Here

Bold text Italics Create a hyperlink Insert a clipart image Add a YouTube Video
Need to Register?
Forgot Password?
Enable HTML code in message
   



Main Forums

Today's Posts

Forum Help

Follow Us