Difference in sound between AR3 and AR3a

[fedeleluigi]

Hello everybody

 

What was the difference about sound between AR 3 and AR 3a (especially in mid-range band reproduction) when they were new (or, nowadays,  when they are in a perfect state of functioning)?

 

I'm asking this question, because, for the first time in my life, I have listened to a pair of AR3s and I have noticed that the speaker balance of bass, mid-range and treble is different in comparison to AR 3a's. Listening to AR3,  the sound pressure level of mid- range band  was not so "powerful" as AR 3a's, so, for example, human voices were smaller than AR3a's and also details and nuances in mid-range band were not so accurate as AR3a's.

In AR 3, even if almost all the fundamentals of human voices are reproduced by the woofer, the 1000Hz first order crossover, cause a wide overlap between woofer and midrange, exactly around  1000Hz.  So, either a defective midrange or woofer could cause less sound pressure level in the mid-range band and affect human voice reproduction.

I have thought about defective drivers because I've never read in old audio magazines about a difference in balance of bass, mid-range and treble between AR 3 and AR3a, but the old reviews examined perfect and new speakers.  So I'm wondering if the difference in balance I have listened to is normal  or could be caused by some problem of AR3 drivers although there was no distortion (or other issues) in those AR3s sound.

I will appreciate any information about this question.

 

Thanks

 

Luigi

 

[Sonnar]

I have two pairs of AR 3 , and they sound identical. My father had AR 3 , bought new in early '60, they had early " gold thread "grilles. When he bought the new AR 3a in 1969/70, we noticed immediately a similar but different sound. AR 3a's midrange has a more powerful radiating dispersion , so voices are prominent and well defined , but AR 3a is also a bit " honky " in comparison to the smooth linearity and neutrality of the AR 3 : to appreciate AR 3's sound You have to know the sound of live acoustic instruments just like a violin, and don' t compare it with other speakers. If You compare it with AR 10Pi , You could say You prefer this one because it has more presence : but to me AR 10Pi is a bright speaker with some tendence to honkiness . At the same time, I could say that my Altec 802/811b driver/horn sounds more transparent and shows better voices than any direct-radiating dome, but they are really prominent and honky and strings are unbearable . It' s a mistake, it' s a fake transapency : in fact , AR 3a and 10Pi midrange tends to hide some delicate nuances while AR 3' s smoothness is more revealing , less spectacular perhaps but surely more accurate. Obviously , AR were born to reproduce Haendel and Mozart, not exactly pop-rock. Greetings, Adriano

[owlsplace]

Adriano, I think you nailed that one pretty well from what I know of the 3's.

Roger

[GD70]

I doubt there are any 3's or 3a's that currently sound as they did when new. I had the 3a's to restore the cabs, and had the opportunity to do an A/B comparison.

I did a crude video in an attempt to show the difference in sound between the two. The 3's are to the far right & left grills on, the 3a's grills off.

The 3a's are definitely more forward in the mids and highs, though not as smooth as the 3's to my ears. My 3's are early with original oil caps and pots, the 3a's were later with foam surround woofers, and had been recapped and ohmite rheostats replacing the original pots. The bass is deeper with the 3's.

Both had the rheostats set to maximum in an attempt to equal the settings as much as possible.

When the owner of the 3a's came to pick them up, we listened to both, and he also preferred the 3's over his 3a's.

The amp is a JVC A-X9 pushing 105 wpc. (Excuse my attire, it was s cold winter evening in the cave) ;-)

Glenn

 

[Sonnar]

Thanks Roger, in fact I know AR 3 and 3a better than any other speaker , and better than my wife or my daughters, simply because I was a two-years old kid when my ears were delighted by this marvelous speaker ( AR 3 ) . At the time of my birth, my father had AR 2 - so I 'm a real classic original AR man! Cheers, Adriano

[Sonnar]

7 minutes ago, GD70 said:

I doubt there are any 3's or 3a's that currently sound as they did when new. I had the 3a's to restore the cabs, and had the opportunity to do an A/B comparison.

I did a crude video in an attempt to show the difference in sound between the two. The 3's are to the far right & left grills on, the 3a's grills off.

The 3a's are definitely more forward in the mids and highs, though not as smooth as the 3's to my ears. My 3's are early with original oil caps and pots, the 3a's were later with foam surround woofers, and had been recapped and ohmite rheostats replacing the original pots. The bass is deeper with the 3's.

Both had the rheostats set to maximum in an attempt to equal the settings as much as possible.

When the owner of the 3a's came to pick them up, we listened to both, and he also preferred the 3's over his 3a's.

The amp is a JVC A-X9 pushing 105 wpc. (Excuse my attire, it was s cold winter evening in the cave) ;-)

Glenn

 

I agree with your analisys of the differences between 3 vs. 3a , however my four AR 3 were totally recapped with high quality german-made polypropilene capacitors. Before the recapping they were a bit " muddy " and dull: with new caps they becomes vivid, clean , transparent and shiny . I don' t believe in deterioration of these loudspeakers by the age : I have a pair of 58 yesrs old AR 2 , 100.5 db with 10 watts at five feet in AR 's specs , it means more than 90 db 1W/5ft. . When I have to search a modern tweeter to match this old Alnico woofer the greatest difficulty was in founding a dome tweeter with at least 91 db sensitivity. After 58 years, the AR 2 's  10" Alnico woofer still offers exceptional bass and great sensitivity .  Greetings , Adriano

[genek]

Luigi, I remember comparing AR-3 and 3a new, and the difference was as you described, but rather subtle. If you find the difference more pronounced, then deterioration in components is a distinct possibility, and the 3 has had more years to deteriorate than the 3a.

[Sonnar]

It' s impossible to compare two different speakers in different rooms and with different cd players or turntables and different amplifiers . I 've heard AR LST sounding wonderful in some rooms and very bad in other rooms , and I remember a pair of JBL 4343 sounding great in a recording Studio , but never in home applications. Anyway , never compare a speaker with your favorite speaker - compare it with acoustic live instruments.   Adriano

[genek]

I sometimes wonder how many audio owners have ever actually been to a live acoustic instrument performance.

[RoyC]

I've been repairing AR-3 mids for Vintage AR for the past year or so, and I'm convinced there are very few AR-3 mids operating within spec these days. The white coating over the voice coil gap has been hardened, or nearly hardened, on literally every mid (around 30 to date) I have seen, restricting the movement of the dome. The white coating was originally a white grease-like material, which can sometimes be found in its original state under the "crust".

Roy

[Liangshan Marsh]

Hi Sonnar!

How is the condition of your father's ar3 speaker currently,, still original or recapped? How does It sound after 50 years plus, do you have any PIC of his early one, I am wondering have you ever asked him about your two pairs recapped how do they sound now if comparing to the time It was new in 1960s, 8 over 10 or 9.5/10 etc.

[fedeleluigi]

2 hours ago, genek said:

Luigi, I remember comparing AR-3 and 3a new, and the difference was as you described, but rather subtle. If you find the difference more pronounced, then deterioration in components is a distinct possibility, and the 3 has had more years to deteriorate than the 3a.

Thank you everybody for all the comments.

 

Genek, as you could compare AR3 and 3a when they were new, your comment is very important for me. 

In fact, although I have listened to AR3 in different listening conditions in comparison with my 3a's, the differences in the midrange were not subtle but too big, at least to my ears, to depend exclusively on different room and electronics. So the differences in the mid-range band I listened to could depend on a AR3 midrange issue as Roy Champagne has told us.

I hope that also someone else, who could compare AR3 and AR3a when they were new or nowadays if they are in a perfect state of functioning, will write his opinion about the sound differences especially in the mid-range band.

 

Luigi

[GD70]

How can one really and accurately remember how a speaker sounded 56 years ago when they were 2 or 3 or 8 years old? I doubt I could. I believe we think we remember, but over the years, our ears change, usually for the worse, the caps start to go out of spec, these changes are so gradual we don't notice. Then we do a recap, and they usually sound great again, we hear an imidiate change, and we hope close to what they were like when new. I'm sure a lot of speaker drivers do not physically degrade over time, yet the AR3 mid does as Roy has stated. My 3's sound terrific to my ears, the mids and highs, very nice and clear, but I would guess they were better when new.

[GD70]

1 hour ago, genek said:

I sometimes wonder how many audio owners have ever actually been to a live acoustic instrument performance.

Dozens.

[der]

24 minutes ago, GD70 said:

Dozens.

I am at one every time I play my guitar.

[ar_pro]

This 1968 review provides a comparison in the final paragraph:

 

[fedeleluigi]

On 5/21/2016 at 5:02 AM, ar_pro said:

This 1968 review provides a comparison in the final paragraph:

 

Thank you ar-pro,

 

I had already read the review you have posted as well as Julian Hirsh's AR3 review.

The probem is that the review you posted says that AR3 lower midrange was criticized to be emphasized while, on the contrary, I have listen to a low output midrange (for example, human voices were much more  smaller than I am used to listen to not only with my 3as but also with other loudspeakers). Moreover, Villchur, in one of his very interesting AES interview said (if I have understood everything precisely as English is not my native language):  "The most important element of a  speaker performance, that, I think,  really counts, although perhaps not the only element, it's the amount of power projected into the room and if the power in the bass, mid-range and treble is right, is  balanced, it's going to sound good...etc" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6vI1V_TChk 

 

Hirsch's review says that the differences between AR3 and AR3a "were not hearth shaking". 

 

After reading AR3 reviews and listening to Villchur's interview I have thought that the AR3 midrange drivers I listened to could have some issue but, as it has been the first time I listened to AR3s, I'd like to know from people who could/can compare perfect AR3 and AR3a if a "low output" midrange was a normal AR3 characteristic.

 

As said, english is not my native language so I'd like to know from all of you what the reviewer means saying: " AR3a sounds less DRY than Ar3" as reported in the AR3 review posted by ar-pro. I could not understand what "DRY" means in the context of sound and if it is something negative or positive. From the context I'd say that "DRY" is something negative but I'm not sure.

 

Thanks again for all the comments

 

Luigi

 

[fedeleluigi]

I'd like to clarify that I absolutely don't want to trigger a war between AR3 vs AR3a supporters. Even if the reviews I read about AR3 vs AR3a conclude that AR3a was better than AR3, I do think that it is entirely a matter of personal taste, so one could prefer AR3 to Ar3a and viceversa. What I would really like to know, as an AR enthusiastic, is if the "weak",  recessed midrange band of the AR3s (by comparison with AR3a's)  I've listened to is normal or not.

Roy C experiences with AR3 midrange issues and the AR3 flat frequency responces recently posted by Tom Tyson reinforce my thought that I probably listened to some AR3s with their midrange not perfectly working.

 

Thanks

 

Luigi

[ar_pro]

Choosing is probably not so much an absolute as it is a preference; AR seemed to maintain that each standard-bearer was an improvement over its predecessor. Their brochure for the AR-3 read: "It is the most natural-sounding musical producer that we were able to design, regardless of cost"; while the AR-3a literature states: "The AR-3a is the best speaker system we know how to make". With the AR-11, Acoustic Research claimed it to be "certainly the most accurate speaker we have ever built which means that it is probably the most accurate speaker of its size ever made", and further "each of its three drivers represents significant advancement in performance capabilities over original AR speakers". And finally, the AR-9 was described as "the most perfect sound reproducer in AR history".

And so, if the manufacturer is to be believed, each top-model represented a step forward, but that didn't mean that the earlier models were rendered irrelevant; on the contrary, since there is a clear "family resemblance" in the tonality & presentation of each of these systems over a couple of decades, it can be argued that AR consciously maintained that resemblance and continuity of sonic flavor throughout the development of subsequent top-of-the-line systems. In other words, the "AR sound" wasn't an accident, but a by-product of purposeful design.

Adriano has a strong preference for the AR-3, because he has arrived at a state of perfection, and who could disagree? Personally, I'd have no problem building a well-balanced, musical system around any of the AR 12" 3-way speakers, if only because of their pleasing similarity and reliable presentation. It's a nice problem to have - like choosing a puppy.

[Sonnar]

On 20 maggio 2016 at 1:51 AM, Liangshan Marsh said:

Hi Sonnar!

How is the condition of your father's ar3 speaker currently,, still original or recapped? How does It sound after 50 years plus, do you have any PIC of his early one, I am wondering have you ever asked him about your two pairs recapped how do they sound now if comparing to the time It was new in 1960s, 8 over 10 or 9.5/10 etc.

Unfortunately my father sold his AR 3 in 1969/70 for a pair of new 3a, then LST, AR 10Pi , Allison:One , B&W DM6, Magneplanar Tympani T1D . I bought my AR 3's first pair in 2008, and the second pair in 2013 .   In 1970 I was a 10 years old boy very involved in hi-fi , and I remember the differences between 3 and 3a , and it' s the same difference today. AR 3 aren't speakers for everyone. Many friends, listening to AR 3 says they' re boring, dull, and says AR 3a have no highs. Then, listening to my Altec/JBL horn system they says " Wow , a real live performance ! I like it ! " Wrong . Impressive , but not real. It 's not a live performance , it ' s their idea of a live performance. That 's the reason why during 70's Many people prefers Jbl L100 Century and L166 Horizon over 3a and 10Pi in A / B comparison in hi-fi shops, and for the same reason AR tends to produce speakers with more sparkling sound and higher sensitivity. Anyway, this morning I decided to measure my AR 3's frequency response in room , with a primitive  but effective method: a B&K cd third-octave frequency cd and a Sennheiser microphone wired to mic- input of a a Revox  A-700 RtR , using its vu-meters to calibrate signal. Excellent woofer's linearity , except for a proununced peak of 6 db at 250 Hz. At 1.25 khz the meter was 2db down , and at 2.5 khz the meter was at -3db respect to 1 khz. Then, absolute flatness until 10 khz. At this point, I decided to use my Soundcraftsmen PE 2217 preamp-equalizer slightly exaltating 1280/2560 region , and voices becomes immediately more focused and intelligible , but strings shows a bit of honkiness very similar to 3a . The verdict? I don 't know, with baroque and chamber music I prefer AR 3 without equalization, with jazz or modern music in general perhaps a little boost gives a more vivid image. Every speaker is a compromise, just like everything in our life. My best wishes, Adriano 

[Liangshan Marsh]

8 hours ago, Sonnar said:

Unfortunately my father sold his AR 3 in 1969/70 for a pair of new 3a, then LST, AR 10Pi , Allison:One , B&W DM6, Magneplanar Tympani T1D . I bought my AR 3's first pair in 2008, and the second pair in 2013 ...

So sad when heard your father's early AR3s that It has been long gone, otherwise you have been owned a very early nice pair with ''gold thread grilles'' to now. Thanks Sonnar for all the INFO.

[owlsplace]

A lot confusion about how reduced SPL's affect perceived frequency response of speaker systems. I would love to go back in time to one of the "Live vs Recorded" demos. What was the venue and who were the players -- obviously not a full orchestra.

I'm not normally a 12" woofer guy but since the 58s' have been in the house they have been playing exclusively with the ADS 12-inchers and usually at low levels. So the sound is fuller you might say but it can be overbearing also; however, I can see people getting addicted to that lower 1/3 octave regardless of the SPL's involved.

Maybe straying a bit from the OP's question but I think EddieV voiced the AR-3 for normal listening levels while RoyA may have voiced the 3a's for higher SPL environments. Right or wrong, does it matter? If you like one over the other then that is your model -- enjoy. If I had a few extra grand I would explore all the possibilities.

Roger

[tysontom]

1 hour ago, owlsplace said:

A lot confusion about how reduced SPL's affect perceived frequency response of speaker systems. I would love to go back in time to one of the "Live vs Recorded" demos. What was the venue and who were the players -- obviously not a full orchestra.

I'm not normally a 12" woofer guy but since the 58s' have been in the house they have been playing exclusively with the ADS 12-inchers and usually at low levels. So the sound is fuller you might say but it can be overbearing also; however, I can see people getting addicted to that lower 1/3 octave regardless of the SPL's involved.

Maybe straying a bit from the OP's question but I think EddieV voiced the AR-3 for normal listening levels while RoyA may have voiced the 3a's for higher SPL environments. Right or wrong, does it matter? If you like one over the other then that is your model -- enjoy. If I had a few extra grand I would explore all the possibilities.

Roger

Roger,

The large AR live-versus-recorded concerts were with the AR-3/Fine Arts Quartet.  75+ concerts in 5-6 cities across the US: New York, Boston, Chicago, LA, Philadelphia and Washington, DC.  Probably 10-15K people attended the Fine Arts Quartet concerts alone.  Next were concerts done with classical guitarist Gustavo López and finally a demonstration with a 1910 Nickelodeon.  No one has ever attempted a facsimile live-versus-recorded demonstration with a full orchestra; Wharfedale attempted it around 1955, but the comparison was flawed.  Looking back in history, only AR has successfully attempted live-versus-recorded demonstrations where the audience was unable to consistently detect the switch-overs from live to recorded.   

Important: neither Ed Villchur nor Roy Allison ever "voiced" AR speakers for a particular sound.  Both were interested in power response; i.e., the maximum amount of energy propagated into the reverberant field.  Both were interested in maximum smoothness and maximum dispersion; both were interested in the lowest harmonic distortion, but there was never any "voicing" of the speakers.  "Voicing" is a purely subjective way of designing a speaker, and a lot depends on the whims or tastes of the designer or engineer.  AR was more into the objective results of quantitative testing and measurement.  These end results were done primarily in the anechoic chamber and reverberant chamber with final listening tests to verify results.  What measured well nearly always sounded good, anyway.  Speaker designers such as Henry Kloss of KLH and Advent, and Andy Kotsatos of Advent and Boston Acoustics did "voice" their speakers almost exclusively, and they got good results, but AR did not.

--Tom Tyson 

AR-3s and Fine Arts Quartet Concert

Carnegie Hall

AR-3 guitar LvR, Dave Jones with Ampex 351 in background.

[Liangshan Marsh]

 

 

Couple testing video clips between AR3 and AR3a that hooked up to the same receiver, same turning volume... etc, speaker switching system A and B. My ears are not very good to recognize which one is better.

 

 

 

[Sonnar]

If I could have trusted of my pc 's audio I will say AR 3 has better highs , the sound is faster and more detailed and clean : AR 3a is a bit gloomy , but it' s impossible to compare two speakers in this way.        Adriano