search
Loudspeaker manufacturer Boston Acoustics made its name—and its fortune—building high-performance but low-cost speakers. Indeed, I recently set up a modest system for my mother-in-law that was based on Boston's classic A-40—a two-way design that sold for just $160/pair back in 1986—and was very pleasantly surprised at the quality these little speakers offered. Back in the early '90s, however, the Massachusetts-based company announced that they were taking a step into the High End with a new loudspeaker line, the Lynnfields (see Thomas J. Norton's interview with Boston's Andy Kotsatos…
Sidebar 1: Specifications
Description: Two-way, reflex-loaded, stand-mounted loudspeaker. Drive-units: 1" (25mm) aluminum-dome tweeter, 5.25" (130mm) aluminum-cone woofer. Crossover frequency: 2.6kHz. Frequency response: 50Hz–35kHz ±3dB. Sensitivity: 83dB/W/m (2.83V). Nominal impedance: 8 ohms (6.5 ohms minimum). Amplifier requirements: 250W maximum.
Dimensions: 11" (279mm) H by 9" (229mm) W by 14" (343mm) D. Weight: 24 lbs (11kg) each.
Serial numbers of review samples: LE000425A/B.
Price: $1800/pair in black finish, $2000/pair in rosewood; matching Lynnfield LST stands cost $…
Sidebar 2: System Details
My relatively small room measures around 19' by 16.5', with a 9' 3" ceiling broken up by 9" vigas—raw pine logs. The room is carpeted, and there are patches of Sonex foam on the ceiling to damp primary reflections of the sound. The other wall has RPG Abffusors behind the listening seat to absorb and diffuse what would otherwise be early rear-wall reflections of the sound that might blur the stereo imaging precision. ASC Tube Traps are used in the room corners to even out the room's bass resonances, the result being a relatively uniform reverberation time of…
Sidebar 3: Measurements
Other than impedance, for which I use an Audio Precision System One, all acoustic measurements were made with the DRA Labs MLSSA system and a calibrated B&K 4006 microphone. I place the speaker under test on a turntable/stand so as to place its tweeter about halfway between the listening-room floor and ceiling and midway between the sidewalls. Then, on the floor between the speaker and microphone, I construct an acoustic "black hole" out of graded layers of acoustic foam and fiberglass damping material, which kills the forward floor reflections of the sound…
In the April 1992 Stereophile, reader Hilary Paprocki expressed his belief that recording engineers are unconcerned about sound quality. Indeed, he went so far as to allege that engineers intentionally use inferior miking techniques so that they can bill clients for additional time spent trying to fix the sound. The example he used was the engineer who places a microphone directly in front of a guitar amplifier, a technique Mr. Paprocki felt captured only "4%" of the sound. Mr. Paprocki also likened recording engineers to "featherbedders."
Needless to say, his letter brought a response…
Although achieving a "good" sound is on the engineer's mind, the recording session is not the optimum environment for discerning differences and spending time (read "money") on what are considered matters of secondary importance. Recording engineers in a session don't have the luxury of sitting in a chair with nothing to think about other than the sound they are hearing. Further, the differences between cables, mike preamps, and other electronics are often more subtle than and of a different nature from the large differences introduced by changing or moving microphones. The first-order…
Similarly, engineers have learned one way of recording and see no need to change. Many techniques that could be used in modern multitrack sessions are purist in approach yet wouldn't compromise the goal of making a commercial product. I saw an example of this in a recording magazine article that interviewed top engineers for their tips on recording brass instruments and horn sections. An engineer described an accident that changed the way he thought about recording. He was miking a horn section with his usual method: a mike at each instrument's bell, horns positioned left to right in the…
The letter that triggered this response appeared in April 1992 (Vol.15 No.4), with an answering letter in August 1992, and letters in response to Robert Harley's "As We See It" appeared in Stereophile November 1992 (Vol.15 No.11). A related letter appeared in August 1999, Vol.22 No.8
Miking vs. plumbing?
Editor: The last thing in the world I'd want to do is hassle Corey Greenberg after the treatment he's gotten from the heterophobes. But dang it, it annoys me when people make statements that are technically true but actually false.
In the reviewers' discussion session ["As…
Don't bash engineers
Editor: I am writing to express my annoyance with the unwarranted and misinformed bashing of recording engineers by some audiophiles. In a recent issue of Stereophile, a letter from a reader described recording engineers as "featherbedders," sonically ignorant cretins who deliver "only 4% of the sound." The example of recording ignorance given by the reader was a microphone placed close in front of an electric guitar amp. The reader felt that this would deliver only a small percentage (4%!) of the total sound coming from the instrument. The reader didn't say whether…
Editor: I am writing to express my annoyance with the unwarranted and misinformed bashing of recording engineers by some audiophiles. In a recent issue of Stereophile, a letter from a reader described recording engineers as "featherbedders," sonically ignorant cretins who deliver "only 4% of the sound." The example of recording ignorance given by the reader was a microphone placed close in front of an electric guitar amp. The reader felt that this would deliver only a small percentage (4%!) of the total sound coming from the instrument. The reader didn't say whether…
Blame the musicians
Editor: A recording engineer who would poorly mike an instrument to create extra mixing sessions (in view of the infinite potential for excess time in mixdown sessions) certainly has no couth. It is unlikely that, without the help of accountants, MBAs, and knob-twisting wannabes, there would be as much equipment used at a recording session. PBS produces really great orchestral recordings on the radio mostly with two or three microphone setups, often permanently mounted in the recording hall for that purpose.
Editor: A recording engineer who would poorly mike an instrument to create extra mixing sessions (in view of the infinite potential for excess time in mixdown sessions) certainly has no couth. It is unlikely that, without the help of accountants, MBAs, and knob-twisting wannabes, there would be as much equipment used at a recording session. PBS produces really great orchestral recordings on the radio mostly with two or three microphone setups, often permanently mounted in the recording hall for that purpose.
But in RH's August "As We See It," "A Clash of Values…