AR 4's vs. AR 4x's

[musicallowb]

I have stumbled across both a pair of AR 4's and AR 4x's for little of nothing. Both pair are in decent shape, except that the 4x's tweeter control pots are completely fried as in melted! Conversely, the 4's pots seem pristine, and they turn and work just fine. My dilema is which one to put money into refurbishing...overall the 4's are in better shape. Except for one thing; the cloth surrounds (if that's what they are made of) are very stiff to the touch. The cones move, and the speakers seem to sound fine, but those surrounds feel awfully brittle. Is that normal?

The 4's have the woofers with the criss-cross dampening lines on the cones; the 4x's have cloth surrounds, also. Any thoughts, anyone?

[l24e]

I have stumbled across both a pair of AR 4's and AR 4x's for little of nothing. Both pair are in decent shape, except that the 4x's tweeter control pots are completely fried as in melted! Conversely, the 4's pots seem pristine, and they turn and work just fine. My dilema is which one to put money into refurbishing...overall the 4's are in better shape. Except for one thing; the cloth surrounds (if that's what they are made of) are very stiff to the touch. The cones move, and the speakers seem to sound fine, but those surrounds feel awfully brittle. Is that normal?

The 4's have the woofers with the criss-cross dampening lines on the cones; the 4x's have cloth surrounds, also. Any thoughts, anyone?

Can't help but notice this site has quietened down a lot with fewer posts compared to say 1 year ago!!

Anyway, If you want uniqueness go for the AR4's, they are harder to come by than say the more common

AR4x's.

I don't think there would be a huge difference in sound and judging by how you described their condition,

a quick re-foam at worst for the 4's.

I would go for the 4's first, then the 4x's 2nd! But that's me.

This is YOUR decision to make and I hope you make the right 1 for YOU!

Ken

p.s

Greed is good, why not get both?

[Shacky]

I agree - 4's for historical purpose and to see what they sound like. You can always pick up 4X's and if the ones you are looking at are good price grab them. I just fixed up some 4X's and I'm impressed. Great AR tone and really amazing for a small speaker. Easy resto. Recap, clean or replace pots, carefully reseal and you've got some great speakers for a bedroom, den, or you'll be surprised how good they sound in living room. I could happily live with mine - course I'd have to get rid of the 3a's and that's not going to happen ; )

[Zilch]

4s are collectible; leave 'em be.

4x, uhmm, there are "options...."

[charger3834]

OK I have not posted anything on this forum in years, but I believe that I can answer the question! I have never heard AR-4's, as they are somewhat rare and essentially only produced for about a year(1964-early 1965). Due to their 2000 HZ crossover verses the 1200 HZ crossover of the AR-4x, they should have a more "boxy" less "open" sound. The upgrade to the AR-4x was consistent with AR's design philosopy of maximizing dispersion and accoustic energy response. They would probably have a sonic character much like the first version of the AR-2ax, albiet less top end because of the lack of a supertweeter.

Moreover, the AR-4 used the 3.5" CTS tweeter, which was the same unit used in the early AR-2x and 2ax. The 2.5" AR built unit used in the AR-4x had somewhat better top end extension and dispersion.

Well there is my first post in years; I wonder if anyone remembers me.

[Steve F]

[Well there is my first post in years; I wonder if anyone remembers me.

I've never actually heard the 4; I grew up with 4x's in my parents' house, and their amazing sound started my interest in audio.

I'd agree with your estimate of the sonic differences between the 4 and the 4x, but I'd love to hear from members who've actually heard them side-by-side.

We all remember you--it's nice to hear from you again.

Steve F.

[rl1856]

<They would probably have a sonic character much like the first version of the AR-2ax, albiet less top end because of the lack of a supertweeter. >

Wonder what a 4x would sound like with a properly crossed over 2ax/5 tweeter added ?

Best,

Ross

[Steve F]

<They would probably have a sonic character much like the first version of the AR-2ax, albiet less top end because of the lack of a supertweeter. >

Wonder what a 4x would sound like with a properly crossed over 2ax/5 tweeter added ?

Best,

Ross

I've always wondered why the 3 1/2" midrange continued in the 'new' 2ax.

Consider:

-- The 4 to the 4x replaced the 3 1/2" with the 2 1/2", x-over went from 2000 to 1200 Hz.

-- The 'old' 2x went from the 3 1/2" tweeter to the 'new' 2x's 2 1/2" tweeter, x-over went from 2000 to 1200 Hz.

But 'old' 2ax to 'new' 2ax retained the 3 1/2" driver as its midrange (although crossover did go from 2000 to 1400 Hz). Interesting that the woofer-to- 3 1/2" midrange crossover in the new 2ax was HIGHER (1400 Hz) than the woofer to 2 1/2" tweeter crossover in the 4x and new 2x (1200 Hz). No real advantage to the 2ax's being a 3-way compared to the 2-way 4x and new 2x. As has been pointed out before by others, the new 2ax was really more of a 2-way with 'super tweeter' than a real 3-way in concept. A true 3-way (like the 5) would take advantage of the opportunity to cross over from the woofer to the midrange at a significantly lower frequency than would be possible in a 2-way.

So, the question persists: Why did AR retain the 3 1/2" driver as midrange in the 'new' 2ax instead of switching to the 2 1/2" driver like they did in the 4x and 'new' 2x?

I suspect it was for marketing reasons. After all, the woofer, tweeter, crossover, grille cloth and logo emblem were all new with the new 2ax compared to the old 2ax. If they had changed the mid driver also, then EVERYTHING would have been different and AR could hardly have justified keeping the same model number.

By 1970, the 2ax had been in the marketplace for about 5 years and had built up an enviable reputation. AR was probably reluctant to change the model number of a highly-recognizable, strong-selling item, so I think they kept the mid driver to justify retaining the 2ax designation.

My other strong suspicion is that I'm WAY over-thinking this and AR just did it without putting that much thought into it.

I'd love to hear others' opinions on this.

Steve F.

[genek]

My other strong suspicion is that I'm WAY over-thinking this and AR just did it without putting that much thought into it.

This is my guess. Considering that the AR-5 was considered the only unsuccessful model line rolled out during the classic years, AR would probably have been better off "upgrading" the 2ax to the 5 configuration, selling it as their "junior 3/3a" and not having two 10" 3-ways.

[charger3834]

Well I think Steve is probably at least in part right on his "2ax marketplace equity theory." Like a lot of things mid way up the line, the 2ax was selling like crazy at its $128.00 price point and they just wanted to keep it updated with the new advances in drivers. From their perspective, both versions were not conceptually different. I think Steve is also right that they didn't put more than a couple of minutes of thought in to it.