here is a paper on the engineering that went into the AR9 design from the CSP library.

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/library...he_ar-9_by_tim/

You are assuming I am shooting from the cuff. I've personally owned dozens of speakers, old and new, large and small. I've also owned too many amps and receivers to remember. I also have the privilege of living in a city with many audio enthusiasts some of which have more experience than I. I will not say I have heard it all but I've heard enough to know. Take my words anyway you wish but I would consider my training to be better than most. Observing chat room etiquette, I would ask you to stick to the gear.

I heard the AR9 in a comparo against the NS-1000M and the AR2 with mulitple amps and a Concept 16.5 receiver. What I have conveyed here and elsewhere is what I heard and my opinion has not changed. IMO, the AR9 is an interesting speaker that deserves attention but is in no way audiophile. I found the AR9 to be dull with artificially augmented bass that smothered the midrange and crushed the trebles.

Too many drivers, too many woofers, and a flawed layout mean the AR9 will never be accurate. Dual woofers have phase problems because no two drivers perform exactly the same. The cone excursions also has cross effects due to internal pressure either causing extra or reduced resistance to the other cone. These are the basic flaws of all multi-driver speakers like the L-810, the Polk SDA-1, and the 901 none of which are known for delivering crisp, accurate bass. Side firing woofers means that the sound has to be reflected to travel in the same direction as the mids and highs. This introduces a lag which affects cohesion and also the dead spot directly in front of the speaker. The other problem is the unpredictability of reflecting surfaces which has the potential of introducing standing waves.

I've given my hearing impression and support with my opinion. Address these points or present your research evidence and our discussion will move forward.

i have been careful to avoid making any assumptions in this entire discussion. you have made very many assumptions, from the science behind the design of the speaker to my ability to discern good and bad sound. i can tell you from my experience that what you have heard from the AR9 is not representative of its ability. as i've stated earlier, there is no dead spot in front of the speaker and if you experience this then there is something wrong the configuration you are listening to.

i can make the same claims as you regarding experience in audio. you are no more of an authority on the subject than me. you continually point to the side firing woofers and multiple drivers as basic flaws that prevent the speaker from delivering accurate sound. this reveals a poorly informed opinion on your part as the design is a well proven concept. citing the L-810 and SDA-1 as flawed is off base as they are also well proven designs. i have pointed you to the evidence at the CSP, investigate and see for yourself.

to date you have only provided your opinion and not supplied anything else to support your claims. did you read Tom Holl's paper on the AR9? if so can you specify any flaws inherent to the design based on the paper? if you havent read it, why not?

I wouldnt say any of these things about the ar9's

If thats the case then everything I have ever listened to sounds like crap. each amp, transport, dac, cable, ic, change made big changes in the sound quality of his ar9's.

I have got a great set of speakers sitting in my man cave at home, and I try to put the vandersteens a small notch above the 9's but I dont think they get there, they do have slightly different sound, but both have their own unique thing going on. but both sound great IMO.

I used to know all the specs on my dream equipment and all the stuff that I owned, but what I did do years ago was listen. an example that adcom gfa 555 that I got and ran it with the yamaha mx 2000, I thought they were comparable, but they arent, the yamaha does everything better by a long way. but the specs are similar, and actually the gfa has more horse power.

and thats my next thing, I dont know what this square wave thing is, do you use ear buds, or noise canceling headphones, I mean how does that let you hear the sound that is coming out of speakers.

as for design flawed, I dream about the 15k speakers that have the same side firing woofers, or multiple mids, If it was such a bad design why would anybody else use it in there high end speakers? that doesnt make sense to me.

elroy

That's indeed a pragmatic issue. I never listen to a AR9 speakers but, i know a little of their revolutionary design at the time they were build and even nowadays some European design speakers still use the same principles in their speakers, i.e Canton Karat Reference 2 or Audio Physic Virgo, two of the German best audiophile loudspeakers.

All good questions. The square wave test is the basis for my gear choices and IMO, there is a strong correlation between sound quality and test results. Any piece of gear including TT's, CDP's, DAC's, amps, preamps, and even speakers can be tested. Any piece that performs poorly will pass this degradation to the next piece and so on. I'm very lucky to have a great tech and buddy who used to be a circuit designer during the late Seventies and early Eighties for Onkyo and Marantz. So, when I get something I think is better, he will test it to make sure. Some gear that I thought sounded great performed poorly on the scope so I admit, my ears are fallable but the scope is not. As I have seen better test results and trained my ear to correlate the results, my system has gotten better and better.

What is a square wave test. A signal generator issues a series of audible pulses alternating between on and off. The pulses can be set to any frequency but the industry standards are 20 Hz, 1 kHz, and 20 kHz. The traces show rise and decay results which roughly translates to attack and decay. IMO, musical nuances are found here. For example, in piano, can you hear the head striking the string, the brassy overlay, the resonance of the body? In other words, how clear and unvieled is the sound. (I'm assuming a top quality recording, which can vary greatly.)

20 Hz is the most demanding frequency. A flat top is ideal and shows the amp has enough energy to maintain the bass tone. Some tilting is accepable. The 1 kHz trace is the easiest and should be a perfect square. Subjectively, this translates to how "dark" the amp is between tones. The 20 kHz trace will show some slope on the rise and fall but the top should be relatively long in duration and flat.

While some may deride test results, I've seen the traces and then heard the amp in my home. IMO, the correlation is strong. Layer on the fact that this test is an industry standard and the value of this test is conclusive.

I've attached page 6 from the PC2002M manual that shows square waves.

This is a very interesting debate. First of all, one thing for sure you can't hear a 20Hz freq sound, sometimes maybe (?) you can feel it but not listen to it.
Second, how many times amps and speakers are mesured the same and sound significantly different....?!
Science is there to be used, not to dictate what is true. The basics of a scientific method are to look at how things are, then to design experiments to try to find the reasons why they are that way. In audio, technology is used in the service of art. Imo, i think that is too much fantasy to expect that measurements can predict sound quality as it would be to think that they could predict the quality of music...
I once said it and i say that again, because i'm also a good listener and i was a musician for many years and i understand a little what some measures looks like:
Quality, can only be inferred via holistic approach, which is of necessity subjective. In fact, there is experimental evidence that the more a person tries to consciously analyze the available data before making a decision/opinion the more likely he or she is to be plain wrong.
In resume, i believe in measurements but in reality is my listen capacity and my feelings that dictate to me what is good (true) or not, and not a scope.

Just a thought...

btw Sam, why you believe in the ears of a AKer than in the ears of a 'Thinker? Just because they "pay to belong" they can listen to something more that we can't? C'mon man, they dance to the tune they payed for!!!

Excellent reading, this post. Plenty to think about.

I've heard Scott's AR9s, I've listened to them for an extended length of time and with a close ear to detail, and they are one of the finest speakers I've ever had the pleasure of hearing, at least within the context of his accompanying gear and room layout. So good in fact that they were what spurned me to go to no small lengths to acquire my own AR9LS, which I still consider inferior by comparison.

A dead spot? I've never heard one but then again I didn't examine them for use as NFMs nor do I believe they were designed to be used as such. Regardless, as very low frequencies are difficult for the human ear(s) to localize and the fact that the AR9 also utilizes a very capable front firing mid-bass driver, a listening experience from exactly five feet away should in theory sound perhaps subtly different but in no way "dead". Further, designing the AR9 woofer placement with the intent of reducing image interference should reproduce bass sounds (below 200 Hz) more accurately than a speaker of similar size and room placement with a front firing bass driver.

Great speakers, IMHO, definitely "audiophile". But as always "buy what sounds good to YOU."

i listen with my ears. i also listen to my ears and if they tell me that something sounds good or bad, thats what i go with. i dont allow the machine to determine the sound i prefer because the machine doesnt listen, it only measures. even if it could listen it would have its own opinion of the sound which would most likely differ from mine.

The square wave test was for the Yamaha CR-2020 receiver. It has nothing to do with the design or sound quality of the AR9's.

nor does the square wave test determine the sound that the CR-2020 delivers.

I can read there are plenty of doubters of science, which is fine by me. I am going with an industry standard test that was devised by circuit designers and manufacturers. I will not go against their body of work as I correctly believe they are far smarter than anyone here, myself included. Whether you chose to apply their knowledge is certainly up to you.

Unquestionably, the subjective has a lot to do with preference and in some cases, everything to do with preference. However, when applying the term "accurate" to gear, the only way is to compare the input and output signals to determine how much the piece changes the signal and that is the value of the square wave.

To complete the subjective argument, high speed amps such as Krell and Jeff Rowland's are sometimes reviewed as strident by McIntosh users who are accustomed to the mellower, less edgy sound that is a result of relatively low DF. If you expressed a preference for one or the other, I would be very happy to share in your excitement. However, according to test results, the Krell is more accurate than the Mac.

Another poster mentioned the CR-2020. The CR-2020 is in the signal path and any degradation that occurs would be reproduced by the speakers. This would certainly handicap the speakers.

If you have seen the test results I have seen and then heard the amps, the correlation can be easily demonstrated even to a doubter such as yourself.

Knowledge is knowledge and does not change whether I present in AK or ST. I certainly hope fellow member's opinions do not depend on where they are members. I enjoy both sites.

But i don't.

Now, about this debate; I think what we have here it’s an endless debate because like many things concerning audio we have always two sides:
The “objectivists” who only believe in numbers and specs and in the other side we have the “subjectivists” who regardless the numbers and specs , believe mostly in what they hear.
The same thing happens with jitter debates, or 16/44 vs 24/96 samplerates, or tubes vs solid state, etc…
I’m a “subjectivist” and for that matter and regardless the specs I prefer a McIntosh to a Krell.