Interesting read.

Since I don't have a dog in this fight, I can't make an educated (or otherwise) comment as to the quality (or lack of) surrounding the AR9. Your comment about "science" and "knowledge" as the main premise for your argument, however, intrigues me.

Your contention is that if a machine or chart or data says a speaker isn't good, it's not?

I deal with people "smarter than me" on a daily basis. Most of them can run circles around me in a calculus problem, but don't know which way to turn the lug nuts on their car to change a tire.

In theory, condoms are 100% effective. In practicality, though, sometimes they break.

I can appreciate the relationship between calculated design and speaker quality, but sometimes the ears are the final judge, not the spec sheet.

I could be wrong, though.

On a tangent: Then you have the school of thought that any good amp, wire, receiver, pre, pro, or dac has the ultimate goal of reproducing the sound as closely to exact as possible. Hence there are many who believe that any *good* component (speakers are the exception) will achieve enough of this perfection to be incomparable with any other and will sound *exactly* the same, at least as perceived by the human hearing system. I was even told that the *only* reason a tube rig might sound different is that it's THD was notably higher than the speakers which in effect might produce additional distortion. I got in a quite large debate at avsforums about amps and receivers and evem got dared to put my money where my mouth was by accepting a $10,000 bet?

Anyway, I too am "subjective" and was always under the impression that that was almost a prerequisite of being a true "audiophile"?

I read the AR9 design document and it makes pretty good scientific sense to me... Regardless, still one of the best speakers I've heard.

measurements and tests can yield any number of results but none of them will not tell you how something sounds. you have to determine this for yourself by listening.

but apparently not when it applies to the science behind the design of the AR9, which this where this debate originated. deflect this issue all you want but it doesnt change the fact that you have yet to back up you claim that it and other similar speaker array's are flawed designs. the very science you purport to stand by proves your claims are empty, which is why you wont address it.

I believe in both objective and subjective. Logic dictates there is cause and effect. There is no value if one is excluded.

Yes there is.
Without specs i can make an opinion about what i’m listen to. Without ears what’s the use of specs?

On-line reviews are notoriously clouded by the glow of ownership or the thrill of a garage sale score. Go to any review site like audioreview.com and the reviews all read the same, simply substitute the brand and model. If you are relying solely on subjective reviews, the potential to make a mistake increases. Layer on top the subjective nature of perception and it becomes obvious that specs and test results should be considered.

I would look at the spec sheet on any piece of equipment, but it isnt even close to my final determination, years ago, I would have leaned heavily to the specs, but in my world now, I have a friend that calls that, "penis extensions"

I am almost solely into what I hear. I had to look up the specs on my yamaha amp so I could post it in the horsepower thread, in the old days I would have known that right away.

elroy

specs and measurements should be considered, but should not be the determining factor. the individual is the ultimate authority when it comes to personal preference. ceding this decision over to a machine cannot result in a satisfying human experience.

I respect anyone who does not agree with my opinions if they listened then decided between two or more options but for those who blindly buy into the "science" facts that tell your brain one thing while your ears say another…?
Being influenced since my teens by the so called “British sound” (do not confuse with British press & reviews) i want "music natural & neutral" but that neutral must tend to the “musical” or I am a lab analyzer rather than a music appreciator.

I'm gonna stick my wang-doodle into this...


I just learned that the proclaimed audiophiles of the Boston Audio Society used the AR9 as their reference, go-to speaker for years.

What usurped the AR 9's darling and revered status with this group?

The introduction of the Carver Amazing.


What's that mean?

I find it impressive that the B.A.C. Thought so highly of the AR9 to call it the epoch of their top list.


But- even though i'm a Boston resident, I still prefer my aDs l1230s to AR9s.

Go figger....

A lot of folks or organizations will claim something as reference until they hear something different and better. Keep an open mind...

I do.

That's why I like the aDs better, personally.


I also like the front (downward) firing woofer design of the AR9LS and AR9LSi over the side-firing woofers.

My reason is it seems to have less room interaction.

Also, I, like you, prefer front firing woofers- including front-fire subwoofers over down-fire.



But I am a fan of Ken Kantor's work- he used side-firing woofers to good advantage.

Same for some of the new Rega offerings.



I also loosely subscribe to the "less is more" driver design- 2 way for small monitors, 3-way for full range preferred.



However I've been impressed with the 4-driver (if you include the passive radiator) config. of many of Vandersteen's work, and the Dahlquist DQ-10, which I expected to be a mess, is still a favorite.




Multiple drivers in the hands of inexperienced and poor designers is a sonic mess, and overkill.



Put into the hands of smart designers, they can work extremely well.

In case anyone is interested about reading up on the Boston Audio Society, here's a link....



http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/




I am not saying what they say is gospel. Just bringing up some info.

there is a set of carver amazings for sale on CL, for $900, wish I had the money and the power to run a set.

elroy

Thed: I agree with the less is more approach and I also agree better results can be had without complications such as controlling multiple drivers in the same frequency bands and designed reflections which are by default room dependent.