Steve F

Correction (cut and paste error) "The dealer would send AR copies of ad invoices from Stereo Review—‘proof of advertising’—and AR would credit them the money in their co-op account" That should be "the local newspaper" or "the dealer's holiday catalog." The dealer needed to provide proof to the manufacturer that they had advertised the product, then the manufacturer would reimburse the dealer out of their co-op fund. Steve F.

This is a topic I’ve written about on these pages at great length, several times in the past, so we’re essentially “re-taking previously conquered territory” here in this post. Still, an interesting subject. This magazine ad is not a consumer ad from Stereo Review or another enthusiast magazine. Rather, this is a trade ad from one of the industry trade magazines that retailers received, such as High Fidelity Trade News. It is an AR ad aimed at the hi-fi retailer, telling them to carry AR speakers. The interesting point of the ad is that AR is practically pleading with the dealer to give them a try, saying, in effect, “We’ve learned our lessons! Now we have co-op advertising and promotions. Really. Carry our brand. We promise you’ll make money selling AR, finally, not like before.” (Co-op advertising was a promotional allowance that the dealer accrued as a percentage of the business they did with that brand, that the manufacturer would pay them upon proof that they advertised the brand. Let’s say dealer A bought $10,000 worth of AR speakers and AR offered a 5% co-op allowance. That’s $500 that would accrue into that dealer’s ad fund for AR. After, say, 2 or 3 months, the dealer might have a few thousand dollars in their AR fund. The dealer would send AR copies of ad invoices from Stereo Review—‘proof of advertising’—and AR would credit them the money in their co-op account.) Every manufacturer did this. Except AR. They were so arrogant and aloof (thinking “we build a better mousetrap and people will beat a path to the dealer’s door”) that they didn’t offer the usual ad allowances, spiffs, promos, etc. that are a normal part of good business. Every 18-year old college marketing freshman learns the 4 ‘P’s’ of marketing: Product Price Promotion Place AR did well on Product, but they obviously never went to college for the other three. As a result, they pretty much got their clock cleaned at retail by Advent, EPI and many others. Villchur, Allison, Landeau, et al. were not exactly marketing gurus. Their written ads were good—particularly Villchur’s—but their dealer policies were naïve and ineffective. Remember, AR wouldn’t have needed those AR Sound Rooms so people could hear “how they really sounded” if their basic marketing policies were decent enough so dealers supported them and demo'ed their speakers properly. Think about that for a moment. BTW, this trade ad was a flop. The dealers never supported the Classic line. By time the superb ADDs came out with far better dealer policies, the independent dealers (like Tweeter, Hi Fi Buys, United, etc.) were already very mistrustful of AR from years past and the terrific ADDs and Verticals never enjoyed the smashing retail success that they deserved. “Once bitten, twice shy.” AR is a textbook example of two things: 1. How to invent an industry-leading product that was vastly superior for a decade and still pack-leading in years 11-20, and 2. How to fail miserably at marketing those superior products Steve F.

We’re a bit off-topic now (AR-14 and NLA), but ok, I’ll bite. If it was a 1977 demo of the Advent and AR-11, it had to be the New Advent, not the original. The Original was discontinued in 1976 and a rep would be showing off the latest, and that would be the New. The New was smoother and a bit more refined than the Original, but it didn’t have quite the same deep bass extension. I remember distinctly doing an extended A-B at a Cambridge MA store between the OLA and the AR-14 in 1976. Except for the very deep bass, the 14 trounced the Advent, making it sound like a honky, over-midrangy mess. The NLA would have less of a deep-bass advantage over the 14 but would likely have been more competitive with it in the mids and highs. The 14 was a terrific speaker. Although 10-inch 2-ways have since fallen out of favor because of the extreme midrange beaming by the large woofer before it crosses over to the small tweeter (heck, even 8-inch 2-ways are almost non-existent these days, the norm being 6 ½-inch and 5 ¼-inch 2-ways), a very strong argument can be made that the AR-14 was the very best overall 10-inch 2-way speaker of all those great original New England 10-inch 2-ways: the KLH 6, the Original Large Advent, the New Large Advent and the AR-14. I’d take the 14 over any of them. Sorry—I don’t consider the AR-2 or AR-2x (either ‘old’ or ‘new’) to have been great 10-inch 2-ways. Good, but not great. The original 2 was also very significant historically, but with its somewhat ragged midrange FR, its necessity of horizontal-only use and its lack of extension above 12-13kHz, it can’t be called “great” by objective standards, once emotion is removed from the evaluation. Steve F.

are way easier to maintain th[an] AR speakers. In retrospect, that is certainly true. Who knew in 1973 what a total pain it would be to still have a properly-functioning set of 3-way second-gen AR Classics 45 years later? OK, so woofer surround foam rot affects all speakers from that era, but that is pretty easily remedied. But the problems specific to ARs are really bothersome and some are just not correctable. For the 2ax (new), 5 and 3a, there is the tweeter issue: those three little blobs that constitute the tweeter ‘surround’ simply degrade and stiffen, reducing the tweeter’s output far below its already “reticent, too-polite” level. When brand new, the 2ax’s/3a’s on-axis tweeter level was 5-6 dB below the woofer level. AR’s own system curves show this. A 40-year-old tweeter with output reduced even farther below that level results in a speaker with barely-audible highs. The foam dampening button underneath the black ¾” paper dome has long since deteriorated into nothingness. Unfixable (although it’s of uncertain audible impact). One of our members apparently can re-build those original hard-paper black domes. But as of a year ago, there simply was no remedy to the degraded originals, if you wanted originals. The pots. Enough said. Even the off-white linen grilles are unusually prone to glue stains and darkening, and require an inordinately complicated cleaning/bleaching/drying procedure if you want to bring them back. Sure, it’s worth it. Properly-functioning 3a’s deliver a combination of great sound and amazing nostalgia that’s very tough to beat. But it’s not an undertaking for sissies or the unskilled. OLA’s on the other hand, seem to be pretty hardy beasts. Just re-do the woofer foam and you’re likely good to go. Steve F.

I met Victor on several occasions during my multi-decade stint in the electronics/speaker biz. I had an e-mail exchange about Victor's death yesterday with a good friend who worked closely with him at KLH in the mid-60's. Victor had been quite compromised from a stroke last year and when my friend told me he'd died, I said this: "Much too dynamic an individual to live in a compromised, graceless state. Wherever he is now, he's driving them nuts boasting about his past accomplishments, making wild predictions of success to come and hitting on all the women. That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?" To which my friend replied, "Yup, I don't think you missed a thing." The amount of "tribal" undocumented knowledge and stories about the hi-fi biz from the 1950's thru the 1970's that will vanish forever as us 'old guard' dies off is truly staggering. Steve F.

Quick question for all you AR-12 midrange restorers--The AR-12's small cone midrange didn't use a spider--it was "centered" strictly by the action of the ferrofluid acting on the voice coil. See the attached excerpt from the AR-12 lit. How did you deal with this? Was the magnetic fluid still there and functional? Did you replace the fluid? Did you simply not notice one way or the other, just replaced the surround and voila! The driver sounds fine? Just curious. Steve F.

Here's an ad for the AT-1, showing three different FR's from three different magazines. Steve F.

I'd say the VR40 was no. 4. IMO, the top speaker I conceived, championed and voiced was the BA VR-M90, a dual 6 1/2-inch 3-way floorstander. It had an amazing 3 1/2-inch midrange and the unmatched BA aluminum VR tweeter. I always liked the AR ADD/Vertical voicing and the BA project engineer on the 90 was a far-field power response guy a la Roy Allison, so the voicing was similar to the AR11 and 91. Great speaker. We never did a color spec sheet on it, but here is a scale line drawing of the VR-M80 and 90. I can probably dig up more info if you're interested. Nos. 2 and 3 were Atlantic Technology speakers. The IWTS-30LCR was unquestionably the best in-wall speaker I've ever heard, by a country mile. I pretty much copied the VR-M90's mid for the 30LCR and we used two, so PH was unlimited and distortion was nil. It received THX's highest cert, Ultra 2. FR was ruler flat from 55-20. The tweet/mid module rotated 90 degrees, so you could maintain a correct vertical MTM whether the speaker itself was H or V. The AT-1 with its remarkable H-PAS bass alignment rounds out my top 3. If H-PAS had been invented and introduced in 1975 instead of 2010, it would have revolutionized the entire industry. The AT-1 with dual 5 1/4-in woofers went legitimately to 29 Hz. No BS. They flapped your pant legs. Its low-rez 1 1/8-in silk dome was about the smoothest tweeter I've ever heard and it could cross over at 2kHz and not break a sweat. Stereophile put the AT-1 on their Recommended Components list--category B, up to $20,000/pr--for 3 years running. The AT-1's were $2500/pr in a very expensive cabinet finish. We could have stripped down the cab and the extras and come in at $1500 for the same performance. But in 2010, from a small company with very little visibility, the industry yawned. (PS--the 'e' dropped off of "cliche" when I converted the AT-1 lit from pdf to jpg. Who knows.) I've attached some pics. They were great speakers, all.

It’s very rare indeed to have the option of buying 3a’s, 5’s and 2ax’s all at the same time. If it were me, I’d go for the 3a’s, and not simply because of their raw performance advantage. Although any vintage AR, properly restored, is a fine representative of the Classic AR period and evokes the memories and feel of that time period, the 3a, to my mind, is something truly special in audio history. It was an acknowledged industry-leading speaker, lauded by Julian Hirsch at Stereo Review, the editors at High Fidelity Magazine and Audio magazine. Reviews of that level of flat-out excellence are really extraordinary. So from a technical/engineering standpoint, the 3a was a breakout product. It is one of the very few consumer products in any industry to have become so famous and have such a high profile that the model number alone was all that was necessary to identify it. No company name needed, thank you. “What speakers do you have?” “3a’s.” Precious few products in any time period in any product category reach that level. Also, undeniably, AR was a controversial company during the 3a’s lifespan, from 1967-75. Regular retail stereo stores disliked AR because of the slim profit margins a dealer had to suffer through, so many dealers (who didn’t carry AR) took to displaying one or two pairs of AR speakers on their speaker wall and trying to make them look and sound bad in comparison to the brand they were pushing (Advent, EPI, JBL, whatever). It was an easy thing to do, since AR had that laid-back sound that didn’t sound particularly impressive anyway in the dead acoustic environment of the typical dealer soundroom and then many dealers would either leave the level controls at ‘Norm’ instead of ‘Max’ or they actually turned them down. The biggest object of these dealers’ scorn: The 3a, of course. If they could ‘kill the king,’ then they had accomplished their goal. So no matter how you look at it, from a purely performance or historical significance standpoint, the 3a stands alone. Get them. Steve F.

No speaker is perfectly flat. "Voicing" decisions are made with recognition that there is always a bit of non-linearity and which way are we going to err? If resistor A gives -1dB in the mid and resistor B gives +1dB in the mid, which one do you choose? You have to pick one. Yes, BA aimed at "Flat," but erred to the slight MR emphasis side of things. If the mid was a bit withdrawn to Andy's liking, he'd suggest it be brought up a bit. "-2db" and "+2dB" are still within the same overall +/- 2dB envelope of the, say, 40-15kHz band. So I wouldn't characterize BA's voicing as a "designed-in midrange emphasis" as much as 'intentionally erring to that side of the voice.' Try my cut. Steve F.

But it seems that you are thinking that the sound field produced by mirrored pairs will be high and wide with no apparent beaminess using either the 55 ort 65. Is that a correct interpretation ? Not sure exactly what you mean by "mirrored pairs," since the speakers do not have asymmetrically-offset drivers. The L and R speakers will be "mirrored" automatically. Yes, I feel that both the 55 and 65 will sound quite nice and spacious, especially in the far field (8-10+ feet back from the speakers). If I had to guess, I'd say a 2-3dB cut between 800-1600 will do wonders. Remember also that these are ported, so they will roll off in the bottom end at 24dB/oct. Whatever the "spec" says for their -3dB LF cutoff, set the sub's crossover control about 10 Hz higher. That's a good starting point, and then you can 'season to taste' from there. Steve F.

Does one model among these stand out as producing broader angle power response if used in mirrored pairs, at least based on what you know or and can see in the data above or both? Or in practical terms are they all going to be about the same when used as a pair per stereo channel? And would pairs be sufficient to approximate an AR11 or 3a power response? The 55 or 65 w a really good sub crossed over at around 100Hz should be an excellent-sounding system. The difference between an 11 and a BA/sub system will be more because of tonal balance than because of power response. The BAs are simply more 'forward' through the midrange than the ARs, although the BAs are not 'too bright' or 'harsh' by any means. The 3a simply sounds too different to be considered in this conversation. You'd have to turn the treble control down by about 7dB when using the BAs to be a decent match for the 3a. The older A40-60-70 were great speakers in their day (and because of their sealed design, perhaps better in the bass end than the ported CRs, if you like that sealed sound), but the CRs have a more 'modern' sound, better FR, better drivers, etc. Steve F.

BA 2-ways have a very well-deserved reputation for being excellent speakers, very clean and musical, with an overall suitability for all kinds of music that was surpassed by very few speakers. I worked at BA from 1992-2003, in charge of Home Audio Product Development. I conceived of the products, analyzed the competition, worked day-in and day-out with engineering (including Gerry S) to develop them (down to the smallest mounting screw), voiced them (and then argued w Upper Management as to whether my voicing would stand or not), did all the marketing and advertising, and then when out into the field to train our dealers. My time period was the HD Series and the initial CR (Compact Reference) Series. The famous A40 and A60 were before my time, and the CR6-7-85’s and E Series came after I’d left. The CR65 was in development when I left. It used a Boston-built ¾” soft dome tweeter, which replaced the cheap Tonegen 10mm VC hard-poly dome that was popular at that time. Lots of budget speakers used that dome (many vendors made clones) and they could sound good if they were used correctly within the system. During the 1990’s-early 2000’s, BA had the most amazing, SOTA, automated tweeter machine ever. Really. Their 1” soft domes and 1” aluminum domes were amazing drivers—QC to within 1dB per driver, virtually no production rejects and—because of Andy Kotsatos’ “18dB down at resonance crossover rule”—BA had no warranty replacement issues w tweeters. Virtually none ever blew, because that weren’t driven hard through the crossover. The downside was midrange dispersion, because the tweeters were used so conservatively and crossed over high. The CR65’s ¾” dome crossed over at 4400Hz—not bad for a ¾”dome (the AR Classics and ADDs were 5000Hz and the AR Verticals were 7000Hz), but BA had 5 ¼” or 6 ½” woofers going up pretty high in the CR Series. It didn’t matter to Andy Kotsatos. “Midrange dispersion is so over-hyped. Frequencies below around 4000 are not really badly directional at all when being reproduced by a 5-inch woofer. It’s not like you’re taking a 12-in woofer up that high. It’s on-axis FR that counts. That’s what you hear that tells you if you like it or not.” Tough to argue in the real world, “theory” be d*mned. The biggest issues with the BAs was NOT their midrange dispersion. Their biggest issue was their slightly too-forward, sort-of-midrangy spectral balance that Andy liked. That voicing came from his Advent days. I liked the AR ADD balance and Andy and I often went at it pretty hot. As time went on, BA’s voicing became a bit less dependent on Andy’s preferences and he deferred more to “younger ears.” The CR65 was less “Andy” than the CR6. The high-end VR-M50/60 monitors and VR-M80/90 floorstanders were mostly the engineer Mike Chamness (a power response guy, a la Roy) and me, with a bit of Andy. I like the CR65 and would recommend it pretty highly. Steve F.

Now Tom, I would never glaze over at one of your fascinating explanations! Steve F

The CR8 (7"woofer) and CR9 (8" woofer) were voiced very similarly. The CR9's bass extended about 10Hz lower, enough to be audible to a meaningful degree. One of our engineers (Gerry S, also a poster on this forum) used the CR9 as reference speakers in his lab, to compare new speakers to as a benchmark. They had a very smooth and level frequency response and plenty of bass. It was an absolutely terrific speaker. The thing to remember was that in 1995-ish when it was introduced, "bookshelf" speakers had already started to shrink. The CR9 was almost identical in size the the AR-4x of 1965, yet the 4x was tiny by the standards of its day, while the CR9 ended up being too big to be a really good seller. The CR9's bass response was easily the equal of the AR-2ax and 5, and far superior to the 4x. I liked the CR8 the best of the CR line, because it used the 'good' 1" Boston-built Kortec tweeter (as did the CR9), but the CR8 was smaller and better-looking, while still having a completely respectable low end. But if you currently have the CR9's and like the way they sound and look, I see no reason to change. That was a fine series of speakers. Steve F.

When I arrived at BA (1992) the 1030 was the top of the current line and development of the VRs started in 1993. They were introduced in the fall of 1994. No one had any complaints with the actual sound and performance of the 1030, but it was a blocky, ugly speaker, with no visual style or grace whatsoever. The trend at the time was to go slightly smaller, be really sleek and stylish and maintain an absolutely unimpeachable acoustic performance. Gerry was the lead engineer on the 1030 and was responsible for its voicing. By the time we did the VR series, another engineer had joined the staff (Dave Fokos) and he did the VR and CR lines. Gerry turned his attention to the best-selling Subsat 6 and Sub Sat 7 sub/satellite systems, along with their companion center channel speakers, the CS6 and CS7. If I remember correctly, Gerry also did BA’s first THX-approved speakers, the 555 LCRs, 575 surround and 595 subwoofer. And all of BA’s truly excellent in-wall speakers Anyway, the VR40 ended up being a truly great speaker. I’ve been in this business for many decades and been associated with some truly great speakers, and the VR40 is near the very top of that list. Sleek, trim, great-looking, it was a dual 7” woofer 3-way system with a 5 ¼” mid and BA’s superb aluminum VR tweeter with AMD. The real walnut veneer cab was quite nice as well. That speaker was ruler flat on-axis from around 40-45Hz-20kHz, with good dispersion. It had a 1”-thick baffle and by-pass caps in the x-over. Bi-ampable. Carpet spikes. Quite sophisticated. Very musical and not harsh at all, in spite of the clichéd reputation that metal domes have. I liked them so much that I got a pair for my dad to replace some older ARs that he had. I am very surprised to hear that the pair you are looking at had their surrounds “re-foamed.” The VR woofers had butyl rubber surrounds, not foam. They would never need to be replaced, unless they were mechanically torn or suffered some other misfortune. They were not susceptible to ‘foam rot,’ since they were not foam. Same with the midrange. Comparing the T1030 directly to the VR40, I would characterize the 1030 as being slightly “gutsier” and the 40 as being slightly more “refined.” Both terrific speakers, just a slightly different approach. Steve F.

In their great 1971 full-line brochure (in my opinion as a decades-long marketing/product development/eng dir/mgr, that is about the best brochure I’ve ever seen, in terms of both subjective emotional appeal coupled with objective black-and-white ‘proof’—a perfect balance), AR said of the 4x—“....it may not have as wide a frequency range as some of our other speakers, but in terms of uncolored, natural reproduction, it holds its own with any of them.” Clearly, AR regarded the 4x as having the same mission of musical accuracy as the 2ax, 3 and 3a. And it clearly succeeded: Julian Hirsch of Stereo Review said its frequency response was unmatched by almost any speaker at any price and added, “We know of no competitively-priced speaker that can compare with it.” Steve F.

Aside from the mediocre sound, the ugly appearance and the ill-conceived marketing campaign that made it the most spectacular flop of the entire Classic series (the only true out-and-out failure from 1954-1974), the AR-8 is interesting for a few other reasons. First, the 10-inch woofer—at least at the beginning of this product’s life—was indeed a different woofer from the one in the 2ax/5. AR’s own lit on the AR-8 said something to the effect of, “....we’ve used a 10-inch woofer that is somewhat more efficient than our other designs.....” and the system’s resonance was spec’d at 52Hz, different and lower than the 2ax/5 system resonance of 56Hz. Both of those data points indicate that the 8 had a different low-frequency design than the 2ax/5. The other design interesting aspect was AR’s contention that the “Increase” position of the tweeter level switch provided “sharper, harder, more exaggerated high frequencies, appropriate for today’s rock music,” or words to that effect. In other words, AR was admitting outright that their other speakers were “dull” on the popular music of the day and with the 8, they were intentionally abandoning any pretense of musical accuracy—quite a departure for them. The AR-8 failed on every count. Its bass was not any stronger or deeper than the 2ax or 5 in practical, real-life terms, so AR soon saw the folly of manufacturing separate woofers for the different systems and went to a “universal” 10-incher instead. The 8’s “increase” tweeter position did not produce ‘sharper, harder’ high frequencies. The 8 sounded no brighter or different than the AR-6 or 7. (Actually the 7 was the brightest of them all, as I’ve pointed out before, and the High Fidelity Magazine curves show that quite clearly. High Fidelity tested the 6, 7 and 8 and ran curves on them in exactly the same manner, under the same conditions. The 6 and 8 are well nigh identical; the 7 shows an unmistakeable increase around 7-10kHz of about 2dB or so, and that’s exactly how it sounds.) At $119 ea., the AR-8 in an ugly vinyl wrap was $3 more than the Large Advent in real walnut and $17 more than the Advent in vinyl. If I ever teach a graduate marketing course at Harvard Business School and I want to give an example of a product from a major company that got every single blessed last thing wrong, I’ll tell the class about the AR-8. Steve F.

Let’s try not to go off on too many tangents, as to where it would be built, how many would be sold, whether the bass section would be powered, etc. Those are unanswerable hypothetical questions. The original question was what the AR9 would cost in today’s dollars. A straight 1978-2016 translation of 1978’s $1800 is $7000 in 2016. I stand by my original position that the 9 today would be a bit nicer and have a few more niceties, like spiked feet, tri-amp terminals, audiophile x-overs, etc. That would put it into the 10k + range, as Gene K agrees. As to AR Pro’s question if anyone is doing a sealed high-end speaker these days, yes: Legacy Audio. Their Signature uses dual sealed 10’s in a 4-way config, very similar in size and specs to the AR90, but with AMTs replacing the dome mid and tweeter. http://legacyaudio.com/products/view/signature-se/ Their web site is very confusing, but I think they go for about $7500/pr., depending on finish. I’d consider these if my 9’s ever give up the ghost. Legacy’s founder/designer Bill Dudleston is long on record as being a big fan of he AR9, because of its dual 12-inch woofer air-moving capability and 4-way design. The other thing I’ve toyed around with in my mind is designing/building my own, since I am still close friends with the engineering people at past speaker companies I’ve worked at and I still have access to their engineering facilities and vendor sampling services. I could have “sample” cabinets built, co-design the speakers, do all the measurements in SOTA professional labs, tweak the x-overs to be exactly the way I want, etc. The big impediment to this is the fact that everything would have to be done “after hours” so as not to interfere with their regular business, which would lead to this being a very long, drawn-out process. I’ve calculated my “wholesale” parts/materials cost and extrapolated that to retail price. It comes to about…..$10,000/pr. retail. So the 9’s estimated cost in 2016 of $10k+ is spot on. Steve F.

There are lots of ‘inflation calculators’ on the web, and any one of them might tell you that the 9’s $1800/pr. price in 1978 translates to about $7000/pr. today. But the AR9 as designed and built in 1978 would never be done the same way today, so the direct 1978-2016 translation of price is somewhat meaningless, in my view. Keeping the raw acoustics the same—which is fair, since the 9 is so incredibly excellent—the cabinet, terminals, feet/spikes (the 9 had none) and crossover would be designed quite differently, to address today’s market realities. Specifically, the 9’s ugly-duckling cabinet, with its strange woofer grilles and astonishingly mediocre walnut veneer, wouldn’t look that way today. That would never pass muster. Today’s 9 would be housed in a gorgeous furniture-grade cabinet with smooth, sleek contours and a beautiful overall look that mitigated its immense absolute size. Likewise, in a nod to 2016 market realities, the terminals would be large, beefy gold-plated units, perhaps tri-amp capable. The crossover would boast “audiophile” componentry, with expensive, bragging-rights caps, chokes and resistors. There would be feet/spikes, likely brushed aluminum or stainless steel. Add it up and today’s 9, with the same acoustic performance but vastly superior aesthetics, would likely go for well north of 10 large for the pair. And be a bargain. Steve F.

I was the Director of Home Audio Product Development at Boston Acoustics from 1992-2003, so I can tell you something about these speakers. The original CR series (Compact Reference) was introduced in Dec 1994, as the replacement to the HD series. That first CR family consisted of the CR6 (5 ¼” 2-way), CR7 (6 ½”), CR8 (7”) and CR9 (8”). They were all ported speakers, because BA was being hammered at the time at retail in A-B comparisons by companies like PSB and Energy. Those companies had ported speakers, which gave them a little deeper -3dB point—at the expense of a very rapid 4th-order rolloff beneath that—but in a retail A-B (especially without efficiency compensation, which most retailers no longer used), they sounded like they had “more bass” than the sealed HD5, HD7, etc. They were received very well by dealers and they sold quite well. The 6 and 7 used a cheap Tonegen hard dome, while the 8 and 9 used a BA-built 1” soft dome, that we called “Kortec.” Totally nonsensical, made-up name, meant nothing, but it sounded good. The tweeter itself was superb, as was BA’s 1” aluminum dome (used in the VR20, 30 and 40 floorstanders), also built in-house in Peabody MA. The CR7 was a favorite of BA’s president, Andy Kotsatos. For an inexpensive speaker using pretty ordinary components, it sounded truly excellent, with great balance and a very smooth FR. My favorite in the line was the CR8, which really did do the “where’s the sub” trick pretty well, especially for a 7” woofer. That 1” tweeter was smooth as could be and that was a great speaker. The CR9 was a “big bookshelf” (by 1990’s standards), but it was full range, with solid bass down into the mid 40’s. The front baffle and rear panel were reinforced molded plastic and the four panels (top, sides and bottom) were MDF with 45-degree cuts and connected together by their black or woodgrain vinyl wrap. We had a special jig that held the front and rear parts upright, applied the glue and the inner MDF wrap just fit right into slots around the outside of the plastic panels. There was also a big internal MDF U-brace, and the legs of the brace fit into receptacles on the backside of the front plastic baffle. The resulting cabinet had the look of a traditional wood bookshelf speaker with the smooth details (terminal well, port flare, driver recesses, rear-panel wall-mount keyhole, etc.) that could only be done that nicely as a one-piece plastic molded part. Add to that nice metal-perf grilles, and the CRs were lookers, that’s for sure. Made ordinary bookshelf speakers seem like 1950’s relics. At CES in January 1995, it seemed like every high-profile competitor was in our booth, examining the CRs. I remember the head of one of the major Canadian companies (probably Energy) was there with their head Eng person, and their President was admonishing the Eng guy, shaking his finger at him, saying, “This is how you build a bookshelf speaker!” The CR4 and 5 came quite a few years later, very small sealed speakers, using 4 ½” drivers—a full-range driver in the 4, a 2-way with that cheap Tonegen tweeter in the 5. These were nothing special. The second-gen CR bookshelves—the CR55, 65, 75 and 85—used all BA-built tweeters, even in the lesser models. The little hard-dome Tonegen was gone, replaced by a far superior BA ¾” dome. But even though the 55, 65, 75 and 85 were truly good speakers, by then—around 2001—the market for “real” audio was starting into its downward spiral and they were not as successful as the previous CRs were. Steve F.

In terms of being “worth looking at,” there are several considerations. First, and most important from a practical standpoint, is that the foam inserts that control the speakers’ directivity may have all degraded into nothingness by today, 30 years after they were made. Unlike merely re-foaming a woofer surround, it may well be impossible to replace/re-create these inserts. Without them, the original performance of the speakers will be lost. Second, you’d have to determine that the associated ambient amplifier was working and in proper condition. I doubt you could find a service schematic for such a rare item and without one, you’d have to find a technician who could recognize by sight what the circuitry and layout were all about, and then test for leaky capacitors, etc. Third, the very design premise of the speakers—wider soundstage and a more ambient sound akin to the original performance venue—has been rendered irrelevant. Not that the final goal is irrelevant, but modern multi-channel digital/home theater electronics very strongly suggest that the best way to accomplish this goal is with sophisticated receivers and pre-amp/processors, feeding multiple speakers around the room. There are better, more convincing ways to do this today than there was 30 years ago. I suppose the best thing that the Magics had going for them was the ability to sound three-dimensionally lifelike using only two speakers, as opposed to a modern multi-channel system requiring 5 or 7 speakers. For all these reasons—especially the first—I’d be very cautious. If you can find them for next to nothing, then why not, but I wouldn’t expend too much time, energy or money chasing them down. Steve F.

Incorrect P. 2 above--use this one. Please forward these to Mark. Steve F.

Here is the MGC lit. I scanned it in color, 4 pages. Gene or another Admin should add this to the Library. The sharp-eyed will notice: 1. AR spec'd the 12" MGC-2 at -3dB @ 39Hz, the same as the MGC-1's dual 8-inchers, to avoid embarrassing the -1. The -1 had barely 2ax-level bass in real life (remember, I heard them many times), while the -2 had normal AR 12-inch bass. All Classic and ADD AR 12-inchers were 35 Hz. 2. The -1 had a 9LS-era dual-dome assembly, with a 3/4" soft-dome tweeter. The -2 had a 1" titanium dome, a la the Connoisseur 50t. 3. The -1 had a 2-way side array with a 1" dome tweeter, probably a soft dome, same as their better 2-way offerings of that era. 4. The -2 had a single 6 1/2-inch full-range side driver--no tweeter. Note that the side array on both models was electronically limited to 5,000 Hz anyway. On the plus side, these were really seriously-engineered speakers of the highest quality, with a very ambitious goal. On the minus side, they didn't sell at all and they didn't confer any meaningful market attention onto AR that helped the sales of their "regular" speakers. Steve F.

Steve - I seem to recall reading that the MGC-2 woofer used a polypropylene cone - does your brochure agree with this? Yes, it was a pp woofer. All their woofers at that point were pp. The TOTL line at that time was transitioning from the 9LS to the TSW910. The 910 definitely had pp woofs. Also at that time, the more high-end Connoisseur Series was concurrent with the MGC-1 and the TSWs. I had Conni 50t's (12" woof, 6" cone mid, 1" titanium tweeter) and the woofer and mid were pp. The 50's were nice speakers, but a bit bright. And even though the cabinet volume was around 2 cu ft compared to the 11/3a's 1.48 cu ft, the 50 definitely did not go deeper--if even as deep. Gives a lot of credence to the thought that those Japanese Tonegen pp woofers had a meaningfully higher Fs than the paper cone 12" woofers that had been built by AR in MA. If I get motivated, I'll scan and post the MGC-2 lit. Steve F.