In the 1960s, Acoustic Research (AR) faced tough competition from loudspeaker brands like JBL, Klipsch, and Altec Lansing, which dominated with large, visually impressive speakers known for powerful bass and volume. AR took a different path, developing compact speakers with their acoustic suspension design, hoping to gain traction in the home audio market. To prove that size didn’t matter, AR held a series of live-versus-recorded demonstrations, where audiences tried to tell the difference between live performances and recordings played through AR speakers.
In small concert halls and dealer showrooms, curtains would be placed between the audience and the speakers+musicians and the music was played. Most people could not consistently tell which was live and which was recorded. Thus, the conclusion.
There was no difference.
This was kind of like the old Memorex ad.
Around the same time, McIntosh Labs held “McIntosh Clinics,” where they tested amplifiers and compared their superior measurements to those of other brands. Both AR and McIntosh used these tactics to redefine how people thought about quality in audio equipment, focusing on measurable fidelity rather than appearance or size.
All this gets me to wondering. Did these marketing ploys sow the seeds of the great divide that still exists in the audio world? That beyond a certain performance level there can be no further benefit?
Is that how it all happened?
