ARC appears to be in trouble..........

Mikado463

Mikado463

Audioholic Spartan
I once owned an Audio Research amp and CD player. Nice stuff but, frankly, not smart purchases. Apparently others have come to the same conclusion.
Sorry, can't disagree more. I've owned various pre-amps, line stages and phono-pre over the past 40 years and have NEVER been disappointed. My SP-9 mkII, Steve Huntley(Great Northern Sound) modified pre-amp still lives and performs beautifully in my sons system out in the mtns of Colorado.

My LS-28 is my current line stage that continues to bring me listening joy !
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
Sorry, can't disagree more. I've owned various pre-amps, line stages and phono-pre over the past 40 years and have NEVER been disappointed. My SP-9 mkII, Steve Huntley(Great Northern Sound) modified pre-amp still lives and performs beautifully in my sons system out in the mtns of Colorado.

My LS-28 is my current line stage that continues to bring me listening joy !
It isn't about disappointment. It is about poor financial value. The stuff was very nice, as I said. I get the same performance today at a much lower price.
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
For those interested, an update ..........

I read that article. I had never heard of Acora Acoustics before. They are a Canadian speaker manufacturer out of Scarborough Ontario, Canada. Their Schtick is speakers with granite enclosures. They seem in other respects nothing out of the ordinary. They give no meaningful specs, apart from what can basically be deduced from the photographs.

I have no idea why they have bought ARC. Obviously building high priced tube amps is a dead end venture. So I suspect a large dump of snake oil by the barrow load is in the offing.

ARC are located in Plymouth MN, a Northwestern suburb of the metro here. It is right where I94 joins I 694 and I 494. I 694 is the Northern part and I 494 the Southern part of the Twin Cities Metro belt way. So they would be located 30 miles from where I live. So I might keep a "weather eye".
 
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
As I suspected if this deal does go though and is approved by the judge, then ARC will be in hands of a certifiable clown.

I found a review of their granite stand mounted speakers. The problem with building a speaker out of heavy dense material is that it sends the cabinet resonance up into the easily audible range. In other words it starts to ring like a bell.

Here is the cabinet resonance of that speaker at 900 Hz. A really nasty place to have it.



It also shows in the FR. Not only that, you can see they have not heard of baffle step compensation. Also the cabinet is poorly tuned.



This is the averaged room response.



So after spending all that money on granite, you end up producing a very poor quality speaker.
Some mothers do 'ave 'em!.
 
Out-Of-Phase

Out-Of-Phase

Audioholic General
It isn't about disappointment. It is about poor financial value. The stuff was very nice, as I said. I get the same performance today at a much lower price.
If I remember right, you performed volume-matched, double-blind listening tests with your AR equipment and your conclusion was there were no sonic differences between your tube AR components and a solid-state receiver. Is this correct Fred?
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
As I suspected if this deal does go though and is approved by the judge, then ARC will be in hands of a certifiable clown.

I found a review of their granite stand mounted speakers. The problem with building a speaker out of heavy dense material is that it sends the cabinet resonance up into the easily audible range. In other words it starts to ring like a bell.

Here is the cabinet resonance of that speaker at 900 Hz. A really nasty place to have it.



It also shows in the FR. Not only that, you can see they have not heard of baffle step compensation. Also the cabinet is poorly tuned.



This is the averaged room response.



So after spending all that money on granite, you end up producing a very poor quality speaker.
Some mothers do 'ave 'em!.
Those measurements of that flawed design speak for themselves. They look like they sound awful. They are solid proof that so-called quality cabinet materials alone are not what makes for a good speaker.

Was the review from Stereophile? John Atkinson performs good measurements, and Stereophile has a large library of speakers he has measured with consistent methods over the years. But when speaker designs he measures are so flawed, Atkinson irritatingly understates what his measurements clearly show. It would be interesting to see just what John Atkinson actually said about those measurements. Do you have a link?
 
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Samurai
Those measurements of that flawed design speak for themselves. They look like they sound awful. They are solid proof that so-called quality cabinet materials alone are not what makes for a good speaker.

Was the review from Stereophile? John Atkinson performs good measurements, and Stereophile has a large library of speakers he has measured with consistent methods over the years. But when speaker designs he measures are so flawed, Atkinson irritatingly understates what his measurements clearly show. It would be interesting to see just what John Atkinson actually said about those measurements. Do you have a link?
Acora SRB loudspeaker | Stereophile.com
 
Swerd

Swerd

Audioholic Warlord
Thanks for the link.

I started reading the review and quickly stopped. The reviewer, Julie Mullins, said things right from the start that brought me to a full stop. (I marked in bold some of her comments that I find objectionable. Those who read on, will no doubt, find other equally objectionable comments.)
I'm a sucker for materials, whether it's finishes for loudspeakers and other audio equipment, a shoe's fine, supple leather, a crisp cotton shirt, or a cozy cashmere scarf.
Apart from their inherent sensuousness, materials can make a difference in the sonics of audio components, especially loudspeakers.

Exotic wood enclosures are old hat. Carbon fiber isn't exotic anymore. Glass seems an odd choice for a loudspeaker enclosure
—but that's the choice made by Perfect8 speakers, which I encountered at T.H.E. Show in Newport Beach a few years back. And then there are the Jörn speakers from Denmark, which are made of iron; America's OMA uses iron, too, in some of their designs. Fischer & Fischer uses enclosures made of slate.
I quickly skipped to the Measurements page. Right away, I saw John Atkinson said some unexpected things:
My initial measurements were performed on one of the original samples auditioned by Julie Mullins, serial number TIB0010. After Acora found out that the first samples had been incorrectly assembled with the tweeters wired in the wrong polarity, which resulted in a massive suckout in the crossover region [3,000 Hz], they submitted new samples. I performed a complete set of measurements on serial number TIB0021. Except where noted, all the following comments apply to the new sample.
Wiring a tweeter with the opposite polarity is an easy mistake to make – for an inexperienced DIY amateur. I've made that mistake myself, once and once only. Acora, a commercial speaker maker, did that. And it was with speakers that it sent for a review by Stereophile!!! That's beyond amateurish, it's dumb. I already dumped on the reviewer, so I'll avoid piling on. But I wonder what she said about sound in the crossover's range. Others can feel free to look for any further nonsense in her review.

Atkinson next says things about the cabinet resonance that TLS Guy already pointed out. As I've grown to expect from Atkinson, he minimizes any audible effect they might have. I think that large resonance peak in fig. 2 is UGLY looking, and will likely sound as ugly as it looks. But you wouldn't know it from Atkinson's words.
There are two very slight discontinuities between 700Hz and 1kHz in the traces in fig.1 that imply that there are resonances of some kind present at these frequencies. When I investigated the enclosure's vibrational behavior with a plastic-tape accelerometer, I found a single resonant mode just below 900Hz on all the panels (fig.2). The use of a very dense enclosure material has pushed this resonance higher in frequency than is usually found in a conventional loudspeaker this size. Although the frequency of the resonance is close to that of the musical note B5, its Q (Quality Factor) is very high, which means it should not affect sound quality.
Atkinson said this about the port's output, the red trace in fig.3.
The port's output (fig.3, red trace) peaks between 40Hz and 100Hz, though the clean upper-frequency rolloff is disturbed by two high-Q resonant modes between 600Hz and 800Hz. As these twin peaks are low in level and the port faces away from the listener, I doubt they will have any effect on sound quality.
The second port peak at 800 Hz is close to the cabinet's resonant peak at 900 Hz. If they overlap, that will sound bad. I think it will be audible at higher volumes. It could be fixed by using a port with flared ends, or larger diameter.

Atkinson said nothing at all about the large peak centered around 900 Hz (fig. 3 black trace).

But he did point out the uncorrected baffle step response problem. However, he failed to say it will have audible results.

And, typical of Atkinson, he did point out the existence of the elevated (3-5 dB) tweeter response above 4,000 Hz, but dismissed it's effect on the speaker's overall sound. Saying that it "matched the level of the midrange peak" is unforgivable. That midrange peak is caused by unwanted cabinet resonance, something you do not want to hear.
The response, averaged across a 30° horizontal window centered on the tweeter axis, is shown as the black trace above 300Hz in fig.3. Though the response in the crossover region is flat, there is a broad peak in the upper midrange, which implies a lack of baffle-step compensation in the crossover. The tweeter's output between 5kHz and 20kHz is 3–5dB higher than it is in the presence region, almost matching the level of the midrange peak.
I could go on, but I'll go straight to his final comment about these speakers.
I was intrigued by the Acora SRB's use of a massive enclosure, but I was puzzled by some aspects of its measured performance.—John Atkinson
These speakers cost $15,000 per pair. I'd be more than puzzled by some aspects of its measured performance.

For fun & games, read the comments at the bottom of that page.
 
Last edited:
John Parks

John Parks

Audioholic Samurai
Acora has a unique approach to their material(s) of choice but their implementation methods (i.e., design) leave a lot to be desired in my eyes (i.e., they are fugly as all get out) regardless of how they sound or measure. Some (subjective only) review sites are enamored with them:
Acora Acoustics SRB Loudspeakers and SRS Stands | REVIEW - Part-Time Audiophile (parttimeaudiophile.com)
Acora Acoustics SRC-2 Loudspeakers | REVIEW - Part-Time Audiophile (parttimeaudiophile.com)
Regardless, they are not my cup of tea...
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
If I remember right, you performed volume-matched, double-blind listening tests with your AR equipment and your conclusion was there were no sonic differences between your tube AR components and a solid-state receiver. Is this correct Fred?
That is correct. The Audio Research tube amps were always low in distortion. They managed to keep it below the level of audibility. They are or were superior products. But solid state amps with the same performance were and are available at significantly lower prices. I don't recommend tube amps but didn't know any better when I was an audiophool. The listening tests cured me of it.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
I’ve still never had a tube amp. So not all audio fans have them ! Nor have I heard of the brand arc ever …
Ever hear of Audio Research? That's the company referred to, although I have no idea why it was shown as 'ARC' when NOBODY calls it by that name.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
That is correct. The Audio Research tube amps were always low in distortion. They managed to keep it below the level of audibility. They are or were superior products. But solid state amps with the same performance were and are available at significantly lower prices. I don't recommend tube amps but didn't know any better when I was an audiophool. The listening tests cured me of it.
I know an AR dealer and have listened with their amps/preamps in the system many times- always sounded great, but there was no comparison happening. If it sounds that good, I see no reason to compare- at that point, I don't care what it could be compared with because I was satisfied with what I was hearing.

It goes back to me frequent question- "At what point does someone just listen to the music?".
 
-Jim-

-Jim-

Audioholic Field Marshall
I know an AR dealer and have listened with their amps/preamps in the system many times- always sounded great, but there was no comparison happening. If it sounds that good, I see no reason to compare- at that point, I don't care what it could be compared with because I was satisfied with what I was hearing.

It goes back to me frequent question- "At what point does someone just listen to the music?".
Like I've mentioned in posts before, I have a friend who's spent big $$ buying and repairing his AR power amplifiers numerous times (sending them back to the Factory), because he's sold on them as the best "sounding" system he ever heard. It doesn't matter to him what others say, or what measurements indicate, it's his money and he does what he wants with it.

I try not to convince him otherwise as he's obviously got some emotional buy in with this gear. I think there's lots of people who love their Tube Gear who do the same. Somehow I'm betting this group is not buying audio gear like they did when they were young, and hence the demise of companies like AR.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
I know an AR dealer and have listened with their amps/preamps in the system many times- always sounded great, but there was no comparison happening. If it sounds that good, I see no reason to compare- at that point, I don't care what it could be compared with because I was satisfied with what I was hearing.

It goes back to me frequent question- "At what point does someone just listen to the music?".
For me it is every time I listen to music since I abandoned audiophoolery.
 
F

fmw

Audioholic Ninja
I know an AR dealer and have listened with their amps/preamps in the system many times- always sounded great, but there was no comparison happening. If it sounds that good, I see no reason to compare- at that point, I don't care what it could be compared with because I was satisfied with what I was hearing.

It goes back to me frequent question- "At what point does someone just listen to the music?".
The purpose of my listening tests was not to determine sound quality. It was to determine what in the audio world is audible and what is bias. What I learned was that what affects sound quality is speakers and room acoustics. Today we have all kinds of digital processing features that certainly affect sound but I'm talking about unprocessed signals.

It all got started when I read a review of the sonic qualities of a digital cable. We all know that digital cables don't transmit sound, they transmit data. In the digital world there is no way to change the digital value (+ or - voltage) of the data while it is being transferred from one device to another. So I wondered what caused this person to apply sound quality to a digital cable. I tested a small collection of them with bias controlled listening and found no sound quality. Every cable at every price point produced the same results. I wasn't surprised. That lead to testing analog cables, then CD decks then amplifiers and so on. The listeners were people who belonged to an audio club of which I was a member.

Incidentally, the audiophoolery world had an explanation for the supposed sonic nature of digital cables. They called it "jitter" which was a timing issue. We tried to find audible "jitter" by processing the data with timing delays but couldn't find anything. I'm not positive about the routine one of our members wrote to do this but we all agreed to abandon the concept of jitter. Jitter could well exist but it doesn't affect the resulting sound of digital signals. The sonic differences, of course, were in the minds of the audiophools, not in the equipment. Bias causes the brain to hear things that aren't there when we expect to hear them. Eliminate the bias and you have the truth.

In short, if you want to improve the sound of your system, look at speakers and room acoustics. Look at putting in a subwoofer if you don't already have one. Everything else you have and use will suffice.
 
Last edited:
TLS Guy

TLS Guy

Seriously, I have no life.
The purpose of my listening tests was not to determine sound quality. It was to determine what in the audio world is audible and what is bias. What I learned was that what affects sound quality is speakers and room acoustics. Today we have all kinds of digital processing features that certainly affect sound but I'm talking about unprocessed signals.

It all got started when I read a review of the sonic qualities of a digital cable. We all know that digital cables don't transmit sound, they transmit data. In the digital world there is no way to change the digital value (+ or - voltage) of the data while it is being transferred from one device to another. So I wondered what caused this person to apply sound quality to a digital cable. I tested a small collection of them with bias controlled listening and found no sound quality. Every cable at every price point produced the same results. I wasn't surprised. That lead to testing analog cables, then CD decks then amplifiers and so on. The listeners were people who belonged to an audio club of which I was a member.

Incidentally, the audiophoolery world had an explanation for the supposed sonic nature of digital cables. They called it "jitter" which was a timing issue. We tried to find audible "jitter" by processing the data with timing delays but couldn't find anything. I'm not positive about the routine one of our members wrote to do this but we all agreed to abandon the concept of jitter. Jitter could well exist but it doesn't affect the resulting sound of digital signals. The sonic differences, of course, were in the minds of the audiophools, not in the equipment. Bias causes the brain to hear things that aren't there when we expect to hear them. Eliminate the bias and you have the truth.

In short, if you want to improve the sound of your system, look at speakers and room acoustics. Look at putting in a subwoofer if you don't already have one. Everything else you have and use will suffice.
All of that is true. So speakers really are the make or break item in a system. As Shady pointed out in his latest BMR review, and I have maintained for years, that the better the speakers, the more room agnostic they are. Good speakers are highly room agnostic and you don't have to plaster odd panels all over the place. You don't see any of those in my rooms. Not only that I don't use any "room" Eq software. I have no need of Audyssey Dirac or any of them.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top