Real McCoy ! New AR eyeball midrang

[Guest]

I have called these people (spoke to Shawn) to confirm the "new, real, AR part" status of these. Shawn tells me they have AR stamped right on 'em. The midranges include the "screen" and eyeball for the LST, 3a, 10pi, 11. He says they are "slow movers."

11" Woofer part #1210003-2

1.5" Midrange part #1210010-1

3/4" Tweeter part #1210084-0

Very high prices. Maybe they are the "real thing." If I had a pair of LST, 11, 10pi I would have to buy some for backups since the real ones seem to be going, going, gone.

http://www.simplyspeakers.com/12diaphragms.htm

I'm thinking maybe I ought to buy a pair of tweeters, just in case.

Bret

By the way - I couldn't care less if these people ever sell anything, I'm just hoping someone here can avoid a "Well, it's sorta the same and it fits" solution to restoring their speakers.

[Steve F]

>11" Woofer part #1210003-2

Aren't we tired of outsiders calling the AR 12-inch woofer an "11-inch" woofer?

People should know better, for two reasons:

1. Industry-standard practice is to measure the frame diameter of a woofer, NOT the piston diameter or the surround diameter. Measured this way, the 3a's woofer is 12 inches. Any woofer--AR's, KLH's, Advent's, anyone's-- would be less than the formal measurement if you went strictly by piston diameter.

No one is trying to "get away" with anything or fool anyone. It's just the standard way that drivers are identified.

This leads to reason no. 2

2. AR had 10-inch woofers and 12-inch woofers. If some parts supplier insists on foolishly and inaccurately referring to an AR 12-inch woofer as an "11-inch" woofer, then there is the all-too-real possibility of a less experienced hobbyist ordering the wrong driver for their speaker.

AR called it a 12-inch woofer. For the sake of industry-standard practice, ordering accuracy, and historical consistency, the woofer should be called what it is: a 12-inch woofer. Period. People need to stop this nonsense.

Steve F.

[charger3834]

>the all-too-real possibility of a less experienced hobbyist

>ordering the wrong driver for their speaker.

>

>AR called it a 12-inch woofer. For the sake of

>industry-standard practice, ordering accuracy, and

>historical consistency, the woofer should be called what it

>is: a 12-inch woofer. Period. People need to stop this

>nonsense.

>

>Steve F.

I agree. I see confusion of the 10" and 12" woofers on ebay all the time. The fact that the cast aluminum version of the 2,2a,2ax woofer has a rather large frame, may cause further confusion. The Layne Audio site stresses that the 12" woofer is really an 11" woofer. Other sites may also use this alternative measurement method.

[Guest]

>Aren't we tired of outsiders calling the AR 12-inch woofer an "11-inch" woofer?<

Okay. This people will not call it an 11" anymore. Ever.

Bret

[fedeleluigi]

>I have called these people (spoke to Shawn) to confirm the

>"new, real, AR part" status of these. Shawn tells me they

>have AR stamped right on 'em. The midranges include the

>"screen" and eyeball for the LST, 3a, 10pi, 11. He says

>they are "slow movers."

>

>11" Woofer part #1210003-2

>1.5" Midrange part #1210010-1

>3/4" Tweeter part #1210084-0

>

>Very high prices. Maybe they are the "real thing." If I

>had a pair of LST, 11, 10pi I would have to buy some for

>backups since the real ones seem to be going, going, gone.

>

>http://www.simplyspeakers.com/12diaphragms.htm

>

All these speakers were AR replacement parts made by Tonegen .The midrange part number is correct for AR 3a, LST, 11 and 10 pi but why does the picture show an AR 303a midrange as you can see in this link: http://www.arsenal.net/speakers/ar/ar-303/AR303a.jpg.? Moreover it seems to have back posts @ 180 degrees.

As far as I know the tweeter #1200084-AB or -0 superseded Tonegen 1200011-1 but I don't Know who manufactured them.

Luigi Fedele

[Guest]

Steve F. -

It's like Darwin's Theory of Evolution, or as I like to call it in this day and age - "weeding out the stupid". If people don't know, there's not much we can do for them. Gotta do your homework, I guess, or you very well may order the wrong part.

I had a set of Infinity's whose 10" woofer was around the same size as the AR 12" driver, not including the frame. It is true that AR 12" drivers appear to run small, agreed? The frames are huge compared to the woofer size. Layne obviously feels the same, right or wrong. But, we know what we're buying, and they sound damn good regardless.

Not to sound like a smart ass, but a 12" woofer should be a 12" cone IMHO. These are the first woofers I have seen run this small, home or car audio.

Just my $0.02.

Chris

[Steve F]

>I had a set of Infinity's whose 10" woofer was around the

>same size as the AR 12" driver, not including the frame. It

>is true that AR 12" drivers appear to run small, agreed? The

>frames are huge compared to the woofer size. Layne obviously

>feels the same, right or wrong. But, we know what we're

>buying, and they sound damn good regardless.

>

>Not to sound like a smart ass, but a 12" woofer should be a

>12" cone IMHO. These are the first woofers I have seen run

>this small, home or car audio.

Hi Chris,

The AR 12" woofer measures 12" across the wide part of the frame, 11.5" across the truncated section of the frame, 9.5" from mid-surround to mid-surround, and 8.5" from the inside of the surround (the actual "cone" diameter). Smaller drivers are correspondingly smaller.

As I said, driver diameters are wider than the actual cone measurement, but this is just the way the industry measures drivers.

The issues with Layne and others calling the 3a/LST woofer an 11" woofer are these:

1) First and foremost, it serves no useful purpose. Calling the driver an 11" driver does not impart any new, helpful information to the end user. How do you benefit by Layne intentionally mis-identifying the woofer as an 11" woofer? The answer is, of course, you don't benefit at all. It's just bad information on their part, potentially misleading, and historically inaccurate.

2) It seems as if Layne and others want to demonstrate how clever and discerning they are by their "discovery" of the actual size of this well-known, historically-significant woofer. It's almost as if their thought process is, "Well, all you hobbyists out there THINK it's a 12" woofer, but we're the real experts, and we've discovered that it's only an 11" woofer."

It's so childish. Calling it an 11" woofer benefits no one, confuses the issue, incorrectly re-writes history, ignores industry standard measurement practices--all for the sake of what? Convincing themselves that they've "discovered" something? Padding their own ego?

I have zero tolerance for non-productive, wasted communication that imparts inaccurate data.

Steve F.

[Guest]

Steve-

Point taken. The design is a bit odd compared to the AR303 though. As I said, damn good woofers, regardless. I just wish they'd start making poly replacements for mine(TSW-910's)!

If I had $150 PER, I'd love to drop those NHT 1259 woofers in for a treat!

Happy 2003!

Chris

[Steve F]

Thanks Chris, Happy 2003 to you too, and everyone else on these pages.

Steve F.

[Guest]

>As far as I know the tweeter #1210084-0 is the replacement part only for AR 3a and LST. AR 10 Pi and 11 used the 1200011-1.<

Since you seem to have these part numbers, and since even the people providing replacements don't seem to have these numbers(or fudge), can you tell me where you are getting your data from?

The reason I ask is that I am working on my AR9s now and have been slapped with the reality that I, myself, replaced a tweeter in these cabinets years ago. I had completely forgotten this.

The replacement driver is not identical to the original even though the replacement came directly from AR not too long after these speakers were built. The only thing on the back of the driver is a number that doesn't correspond to anything I've seen. There is a sticker saying "replacement driver" and cautioning that further replacements must be accompanied by a copy of the sales receipt.

To my shock and horror, the upper end of these cabinets do not sound alike. I'll be pulling the drivers tonight and getting a DC impedance measurement on them. Then I suppose I'll start pulling capacitors from the crossovers doing a crude Ohm meter check of them looking just for function at all.

Looking closely at a photograph of an AR92, it would appear that the replacement driver from AR is the one in the 92 which *looks* slightly different from the original driver.

And I thought I was so close to being finished.

Bret

[Guest Barrydor]

>I'll start pulling capacitors from the crossovers doing a

>crude Ohm meter check of them looking just for function at

>all.

Recommend you swap the tweeters first and take a listen. If the difference follows the tweeter, it probably isn't the caps.

Even if it is a cap, a crude ohmmeter check will probably not tell you much, unless one of the caps is very leaky or shorted.

Ensure also that all the level switches on both speakers are in the same position.

Barry

[Guest]

I don't know. Maybe it's me. Maybe I'm losing my mind as well as my hearing. Tonight I can't make them sound differently. (last night into this morning)

I never got the VOM on the drivers. I think I'm going nuts.

Either that or is it possible that the electrolytics needed to charge and drain a few times to "reform" or am I barking up the entirely wrong tree? They really haven't had a charge on them in 9 or 10 years. I've only put a 55w/channel el-cheapo receiver on them and listened very quietly, but I've run them for a few hours and shut them down. On for a while, off for a while.

>Ensure also that all the level switches on both speakers are in the same position.<

Oh yeah. I even tried each of them in different positions, equally and one at a time, to see if I could get uniformity by making adjustments (I thought that might point me in a more specific cross-over area to check.).

Tonight, no matter how hard I try, I can't hear what I was hearing the night before.

Oh, but let me tell you what I did hear tonight. The friend with the 10pi speakers? Well his amp hasn't come-in yet and mine did but I don't have woofers in yet so I took my Adcom 555MkII to his place (along with an old SAE preamp) and we listened to the 10pi's with adequate power. Okay, so it isn't overwhelming power, just adequate.

Those speakers are bloody amazing. I get antsier and antsier to own a pair. Wow! 3-D? Just astounding. And they are sitting right on the floor in a horrible location. And yet. . . stunning.

On audiogon.com they say the average price for a pair is something like $250.00 (I don't remember, I just remember thinking how low it was). I doubt, very very seriously, that you can touch the sound from those things for less than 5 times $250 and maybe not touch it real hard even at that.

Bret

[Guest Barrydor]

>Either that or is it possible that the electrolytics needed

>to charge and drain a few times to "reform" or am I barking

>up the entirely wrong tree? They really haven't had a

>charge on them in 9 or 10 years.

This is very possible if the speakers have not been used for a long time. But it does not really explain why the speakers would sound so different.

Also, remember that your new replacement drivers will need to break in. This will take some time.

Glad you had good results & glad you did not have to start cutting caps out to measure.

Barry

[fedeleluigi]

I live in Italy and here from 1991 to 1994 there was a reissue of AR 10 Pi and AR 3a (here they were named AR 10 PI Replica and AR 3a Replica. This reissue was made by ENTEL ITALIA (later Recoton Italia) to verify if people were still interested in these old famous speakers. The speakers were built IN ITALY! I personally visited the factory where they were assembled! It was located near Bologna.  Maybe something similar happend also in other place in the world as in some Italian review they told that there still was an AR 3a production in the East.

AR 10 Pi and 3a remakings used the same AR replacement parts (ALL of them made by Tonegen. I personally saw all their boxes with "made in Japan" printed on them! ). Tweeters were labelled 1200011-1, 1200013-1  midranges 1210010-1A (they were still eyeball mids), woofers 1210003-2A. They looked almost identical to AR 10 Pi original drivers. Tweeters labelled 1200013-1 were the 1200011-1 with a 2.2 uF capacitor in series (usually Culver).
In the AR 10 Pi Replica the crossover network was an exact copy of the original one, in the AR 3a it was different probably because the use of a different tweeter compared with the original one and because the use of L-Pads instead the original Pots .

As I mentioned before, the Tonegen tweeter 1200013-1 had a fabric dome and not a paper dome as in the original 3a and LST. Rarely, in some 3a Replica you can find a paper dome tweeter (still Tonegen). Basically, It was a 1200011-1 but it had a very light and fragile paper dome. Its suspension was the same as the 1200011-1's (cloth, fabric).  This tweeter was initially labelled 200084-0 (not to be confused with  1200084-0 or 1200084-AB used for a later and different production of fabric dome tweeters ) and later 1200043-0 and you can also find it in Mark Levinson's Cello Amati. The 1200043-0 part number was a little strange as the original AR 58S fabric dome tweeter was labelled almost identical (200043-0).

Imho the remakings did not sound as the original AR 10 Pi and AR 3a.

Although I do prefer the original 10 Pi and 3a, the reissues were good speakers but the difficulty of driving theese speakers correctly and above all people prejudice (in nineties) against old speaker designs, caused the failure of ENTEL ITALIA plans and their production was stopped. They sold very few of these speakers and so today they are very rare speakers.

As regards tweeters labelled 1200084 -AB or -0  they superseded Tonegen 1200011-1s and they were not used in the AR 3a and 10 Pi Replica. I don't Know who manufactured them.

I could also test Tonegen drivers in my original AR 10 Pi and unfortunately I could verify that they did not exactly sound as the original drivers. I do not want to say that they were not good drivers but only that they sounded differently. In other words Tonegen drivers were excellent drivers but their timbre and their efficiency were different from the original AR units.

AR 10 Pi replacement parts made by Tonegen were also used by Mark Levinson (CELLO) and by ROWEN (midranges and tweeters). Cello and ROWEN used them in their most expensive speakers.

Afterwards the mesh grill on the midrange disappeared and Cello began to use Dynaudio drivers and Tonegen units only on request.

At the moment the production of all these Tonegen drivers for AR speakers seems to have been stopped and I do really think that the signal of their manufacturing suspension was when Mark Levinson began to use Dynaudio units instead of Tonegen ones for Cello speakers.

 

 

 

>The reason I ask is that I am working on my AR9s now and have been slapped with the reality that I, myself, replaced

>a tweeter in these cabinets years ago. I had completely forgotten this. The replacement driver is not identical to the original even

>though the replacement came directly from AR not too long after these speakers were built. The only thing on the back

>of the driver is a number that doesn't correspond to anything I've seen. There is a sticker saying "replacement

>driver" and cautioning that further replacements must be accompanied by a copy of the sales receipt.

 

---I've never seen Tonegen replacement parts specific for AR 9 but woofer. Obviously the woofer was the same (Tonegen 1210003-2A) as  for older AR speakers (3, 3a, etc.). 

Sometimes the original (i.e. made in USA) AR replacement parts did not have the part number on the back but they looked and were identical to the units they had to replace.

 

 

>To my shock and horror, the upper end of these cabinets do not sound alike. I'll be pulling the drivers tonight and

>getting a DC impedance measurement on them. Then I suppose I'll start pulling capacitors from the crossovers doing a

>crude Ohm meter check of them looking just for function at all.

 

---Follow Barry's suggestions. Moreover listen separately to only the two tweeters connected with a same crossover cell (you can use the tweeter crossover cell of only one of your AR 9 disconnecting the other drivers ) to verify if they really sound differently or if a crossover problem cause that difference.

 

 

>Looking closely at a photograph of an AR92, it would appear that the replacement driver from AR is the one in the 92

>which *looks* slightly different from the original driver. And I thought I was so close to being finished.

 

---As far as I know AR 9, 90, 91, 915, 92 and 925 used the same tweeters. I' m not sure about AR 58s as its part number was different (200043).

Luigi

[Guest]

I've got a question in regard to "original" replacement drivers. I was told that the old drivers were doped with something that no longer is used. If there is any way you can repair your old drivers the better off you are. Anyone know the truth of this?

[Guest]

>Recommend you swap the tweeters first and take a listen. If the difference follows the tweeter, it probably isn't the caps.<

Good call.

The "difference" stayed with the cabinet. I'm breathing a sigh of relief as I suspect getting another 200029-1 tweeter might have been a problem.

My son described the "correct" cabinet as being "higher" and my wife described it as being "deeper" (by which she means perceptual depth, not "lower" as in "tone").

My ears tell me they are both right. My ears also tell me that the drivers still have a slightly different quality to them. I'm not good enough to describe it in accurate empirical terms, but to me the "replacement" driver sounds as if it is rolling-off at a lower frequency. But then, I'm not sure I should trust that to an "impression" with 10 minutes between listens. It could be that I'm trying to talk myself into hearing a difference.

Since I have no way of testing the chokes, the next, easiest, logical step would be to replace capacitors and see what happens. Looks like a 50v 6uF and a 100VAC 4uF like is on the schematic in the Forum library.

Opinion please: Should I replace both in both cabinets or just the ones in the offending cabinet? I can't swear which cabinet is right, you realize. I know which I *think* I prefer with just the tweeters functioning, but that means nothing. Are there any notoriously wonderful specific non-polarized (I almost called them bi-polar, but that may be me before I'm finished) caps I should buy?

[fedeleluigi]

>The one with the "big circle" is the original, the "small

>circle" is the replacement.

As far as I know the two tweeters should be identical.I saw the one with big circle on AR 9 and AR 90 and the one with small circle on AR 91. They should be identical as the part numbers are the same as you can see in the schematics of these speakers in this web site . If you want to be sure you have to measure at least their dc resistance and, if possible, their impedance. I do not know these values I hope someone else who have these speakers may help you. In this way you can also verify the proper working (from an electrical point of view) of your tweeters.

Luigi

[Guest]

>If you want to be sure you have to measure their dc resistance and their inductance<

Resistance figures I have. 3.4 ohms on the older, 3.5 ohms on the newer. Inductance I have no clue how to measure.

[Guest]

>AR 10 Pi and 3a remakings used the same AR replacement parts made by Tonegen. Tweeters were labelled 1200011-1, midranges 1210010-1A (they were still eyeball mids), woofers 1210003-2A. They looked almost identical to AR 10 Pi original drivers.<

You sir, as well as everyone here, are a wealth of information. I don't believe anyone "in the business" of providing replacement drivers and help restoring these classics could possibly know as much as you, and others, here. If they know it, they don't seem to care very much.

You were saying something about some drivers being the same and some not being the same. I thought I'd show you mine. These are from the AR9, S/N 5500, 5501.

The one with the "big circle" is the original, the "small circle" is the replacement.

More to come.

Bret