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.

You should also seek out the Stereo Review and High Fidelity reviews of this speaker. It really made quite an impact on the audio press, although the actual sales were miniscule. It certainly was an innovative and ambitious design. Due to the very precise reflecting angles involved, the speaker was really best suited to conventionally-shaped rectangular rooms. By far the most controversial aspect of its design was the marketing decision to use dual 8-inch woofers and take the bass response down to only around 39-40 Hz. Just a tad deeper than the 2ax-5-12 level, but not as deep as the 3a-LST-11 level. Defenders of the MGC-1’s bass are quick to point of that the difference between the Magic’s 39 Hz and the 3a’s 35 Hz is minor, hardly worth quibbling about. In reality, the bass was in two different worlds. For an AR loudspeaker, there are two kinds of bass and only two kinds of bass: AR 12-inch bass and AR less-than-12-inch bass. The MGC-1 was not AR 12-inch bass. I was at the Boston Audio Society meeting where the MGC-1 was introduced and demo’d and I heard it several more times at a BAS member’s house. It was a superbly clean and detailed speaker and its side-firing array with delay amp did a pretty good job of creating a nice three-dimensional illusion. But the BAS and local audio press was merciless in their criticism of AR for their choice not to give the MGC-1 at least 3a-level bass. Especially considering the MGC-1’s price: $3500/sys. in walnut and $7000/sys. in genuine rosewood. Stratospheric pricing in the mid-80’s. Merciless. To the point where AR was compelled to come out with an MGC-2! This was a conventional tower speaker in a rectangular cross-section cabinet with a diagonal gold inlaid stripe on the top panel. The user was to align the gold stripe to be parallel with the wall behind the speaker and that would orient the MGC-2 at the correct angle for the side-firing array to work correctly. But the main thing about the -2 was that it used a 12-inch woofer and had bass fully equivalent to any other AR 12-inch speaker. I remember Ron Fone—AR’s president at the time—saying to the BAS at a later meeting, “AR had finally gotten it right this time.” I don’t know for certain if the MGC-2 ever went into production and if any were ever sold. But I have a nice brochure on them—probably the only one in existence! Steve F.

The AR-8’s 10-inch woofer originally was described as a slightly more efficient version with higher power handling than the 2ax/5 woofers. The system resonance for the 8 was spec’d as 52 Hz, lower than the 56 Hz of the 2ax/5. There is no question that AR initially represented this woofer as being different than the 2ax/5 woofer. The AR-8 was marketed and advertised as the “first accurate speaker for rock music” with the ‘increase’ tweeter position giving ‘slightly harder, more exaggerated’ high frequencies or some such nonsense. I’d have to go back and check the original ads—I’m going from memory here. This was such a disaster of a speaker, the only outright failure of the original Classic series. It sounded fair, at best. It was butt-ugly in vinyl. At $119, it was $17 more than the vinyl Large Advent, and it couldn’t match its bass or midrange ‘punch.’ I don’t know what the marketing geniuses at AR could have been thinking. Here is the AR 10-inch 2-way progression, 1954-1976: 1957-- AR-2 10” cloth surround woofer, dual 5” angled mid/ “tweeters” (maybe 13k with a stiff tailwind), 2k x-o. 1964-ish-- AR-2x 10” cloth surround woofer, 3 1/2” cone mid (same driver as AR-4 tweeter, 2ax midrange), 2k x-o. 1970-- “New” AR-2x foam-surround 10” woofer 2 ½” cone tweeter (same driver as 4x and 1x tweeter), 1.2k x-o. 1973-4-- AR-8 Unique 10” foam surround woofer (different than 2ax/5), 1 ¼” tweeter (same as 4xa, 7, 6), 1.8k x-o. 1976-- AR-14 ADD 10” foam surround woofer, 1” dome tweeter (initially a Peerless dome, then an AR-built dome), 1.3k x-o. In the years following, AR service providers have simply suggested a “universal” 10-inch woofer for any AR 10” model. Steve F.

The TSW 410 (and its Connoisseur Series equivalent, the 35) were interesting speakers, and quite good. The 35 actually made it onto Stereophile's Recommended Components list in 1986 and the 410 received a superb review from High Fidelity magazine in 1987, ending with the line, "AR has done it again." But they weren't actual 3-ways. They were "2 1/2"-ways. Both the 8" and 6 1'2" drivers covered the bass, working in parallel in the enclosure's volume, but the 8" was rolled off around 4-500Hz or so and only the 6 1/2" driver continued up into the midrange, where it crossed over to the tweeter. I worked at BA in the early 90's for about 11 years with an engineer who had been the lead engineer on many of the TSWs and he told me that they were good speakers, well-designed and serious, if a bit conservative. The AR94 (dual 8" drivers and the 1 1/4" cone tweeter) was also a 2 1/2-way design--both acting as woofers, but only one driver continuing up into the midrange. BA did a floorstander in 1994 (The VR30, the middle model of the three unit VR20, VR30, VR40 family) that was a 2 1/2-way speaker, using dual 7" woofs and their excellent 1" dome tweeter. Great speaker. Consider this, as an amusing aside: Manufacturers like to make a huge deal in their brochures about their midranges being in separate internal sub-enclosures, so the mid's cone isn't affected by the backwaves from the woofer. Yet in a 2 1/2-way, the "mid"--which is one of the two parallel woofers--is "exposed" and being affected by the backwaves from the other woofer, yet the midrange sounds fine. Never a complaint about the 410, 35, 94, or VR30's midrange clarity. Another theoretical "rule" shot to h*ll. Steve F.

I have often felt the same way. It would have been very interesting if AR had done an 8-inch “3a” in the Classic era, around 1971, with the AR-6’s 8-inch woofer system (which was markedly superior to the 4x’s) combined with the 5’s dome mid and tweeter. The problem was cost: The 1 ½” dome mid cost almost as much as the 12” woofer—more than the 10” woofer—so an 8-inch “3a” would have sold for more than a 2ax and only very slightly less than the 5. The 6’s cabinet would probably have to have been increased in size to compensate for the extra internal displacement of the dome mid and tweeter, and no doubt extra bracing would also have been needed to offset the added weight and larger baffle driver cutouts. (I’m not even sure the 6’s cabinet had any bracing at all. It was small enough and shallow enough that it was likely intrinsically stiff enough all on its own.) Could AR have successfully marketed this line-up? 4x--$63 6--$81 2x--$102 2ax--$128 “8-in 3a”--$160 5--$175 3a--$250 My feeling is that an 8”-dome-dome wouldn’t have sold because of the price involved. Maybe a 3-way using the 6’s woofer system with the 2ax’s 3 ½” cone mid and ¾” dome tweeter—that could have likely sold for around $110-115 ea. An 8-inch “2ax” in place of the 2x—now you could be talking. Steve F.

It's interesting that the very early ADD 3/4" tweeters were not FF-cooled, because the lit is vague about the ADD tweeter characteristics. The 10 Pi lit says the new tweeter is more efficient and the improved efficiency can be used in the new system without putting the tweeter in increased thermal danger, brining the HF energy into line with the lower frequencies In other words, the 10 Pi lit says, "Yes, we know the Classics were dull, but these new ADDs aren't. The new tweeter is better, but we're not going to really explain exactly how." Really? How can it not be in increased thermal danger if it's not FF-cooled? Ok, maybe just by virtue of its new contruction techniques or some other unspecified miraculous goodness. In any event, the ADDs--especially the 10 Pi, 11 and 12--were really terrific speakers and a set in good operating condition is a nice find. I owned 11s and I loved them. Steve F.

From a post of mine in '07: The AR-11 was introduced in March of 1975 as part of the first wave of the Advanced Development Division (ADD) product family, along with the 10 Pi and the MST/1. The 11 was essentially a refinement of the basic 3a design—a bookshelf-sized 3-way speaker, utilizing the 3a’s 12-inch woofer and 1 ½” dome midrange. However, the 11 (along with the 10 Pi) employed AR’s first incarnation of the ferro fluid-cooled ¾” dome tweeter. The use of ferro fluid in the tweeter’s voice-coil gap greatly increased the power handling of the tweeter, allowing the crossover to be redesigned with a greater voltage drive to the HF section. This resulted in much greater HF output from the 11 and 10 PI compared to the 3a, and completely resolved the “not enough highs” complaint that was common to the older speakers. Importantly, the 11 retained the smooth, uncolored, low-distortion character of the 3a. The 11’s cosmetics were significantly upgraded as well, although the degree of “improvement” is certainly open to question and remains a matter of personal taste. The ADD products were marketed as a limited-distribution line of goods, where AR was attempting to correct their years of dealer neglect and re-establish a measure of dealer profitability (and hence, dealer loyalty). This strategy was not entirely successful however, as the combination of a decade of ‘dealer-be-dam*ed’ sales/marketing policies coupled with the rapidly-changing 1970’s consumer electronics marketplace meant that AR was not able to reclaim their previous leadership status with the ADD line. Considered solely as a product, however, the AR-11 was a terrific speaker. Many experienced AR aficionados—myself included—feel that the 11 combined the 3a’s best acoustic qualities (great deep bass and smooth, natural, widely-dispersed midrange) in a good-looking, more modern speaker with truly excellent, no-excuses high-frequency response. Highly recommended. Steve F.

Yes, the CenterSat7 would be a nice match to the T930. I don't know what HT electronics you have (or are going to get), but many newer receivers and pre-pros have separate tone controls or even EQ's that can be applied to the channels individually. If that is what you have, then I'd actually look for a BA VR10/12, 910/20 center, which are really terrific speakers--clean, articulate, good PH, etc. You can dial back the center treble a tick or two and everything would be fine. Re: sensitivity, all HT electronics let you vary the channel levels individually, so that's not a concern. If I recall, the 930 is of 'average" sensitivity (somewhere around 87-89 dB), and the aforementioned BA centers are all within a dB or 2 of the 930. In any event, that will not be a problem. BA's generally work nicely in an HT system because of their clarity, good PH and ever-so-slightly forward quality that makes vocals and other low-level details come through clearly. Plus, they sound very good with music. Steve F.

I was always amazed that AR was able to "get away with" such an unattractive cosmetic design as the original AR-9. I often wonder if the design was intentionally bad-looking, as if to emphasize the no-nonsense engineering, or if it was ugly simply because they had no good industrial designers working on the project. I won't go into the detail-by-detail aspects of the awful looks of the AR-9. Suffice to say, the ADS towers showed that it was possible to put worthy effort into the appearance of the product, as well as the sound of the product. The AR-9 would not be allowed to exist in its original form were it on the market today. I think that its acoustic performance is still commensurate with a TOTL speaker in 2012, but the requisite cabinetry would likely push the 9's list price into the $10k/pr. range in 2012. But it would be worth it, I'd say. Steve F.

The T-930 was an excellent, straightforward 10” 3-way acoustic suspension speaker, designed by BA Founder and President Andy Kotsatos and Gerry Sheetoo. In every measured and listening respect, it was a fine product, very much in the tradition of the best modern AR’s, like the AR-12 and AR-11. The VR series was designed in 1993 and introduced in fall 1994. These represented a ‘new’ direction for BA. With a new group of home loudspeaker engineers, more familiar with the intricacies of ported/computer-aided design, they moved away from the older sealed designs and went to vented speakers. The VR20, 30, and 40 were done by Dave Fokos, a very talented designer who’d had a direct mail-order speaker company under his own name for a short time before he joined BA. A new transducer-design group was in place, headed by former AR engineer Dave Cahill, and they came up with several truly excellent drivers. One of these was the aluminum 1” VR tweeter, made in Peabody (as were all of BA’s drivers at the time) to phenomenally tight tolerances on their incredibly advanced robotic assembly line. The VR12 center channel speaker was an outstanding speaker: dual 6 ½” woofers (interestingly enough, the VR12 was sealed), and it was the industry’s very first three-way center channel speaker with its midrange and tweeter in a vertical line, to avoid the destructive picket-fencing horizontal radiation pattern that afflicted virtually every side-by-side M-T-M center speaker that existed at the time. The aluminum VR tweeter had a somewhat sharply-etched sound character, very detailed (but not harsh, per se), so I don’t think it would be a particularly good match with the T-930’s soft dome. The 3-way VR40 (dual 7” woofers, 5 ¼” mid, the 1” VR tweeter) is a perfect match with the VR12, and that is a wonderful system. The VR40 has a sweet, musical nature and is one of the truly unsung, undiscovered gems to be had out there. The VR-M90 was the top of the line of the series that came two families after the original VR’s. The VR-M’s included the VR-M50 and 60 bookshelf monitors, and the VR-M80 and 90 floorstanders. These were designed by Michael Chamness, who had previously done a lot of work at DBX on their Soundfield products. The VR-M90 used dual very low resonance 6 ½” woofers and it reached lower than the dual 7” woofers of the VR40—cleanly down into the upper-30’s Hz range. The 90 also used an amazingly advanced 3 ½” cone midrange with a 1 ½” voice coil, in a cast aluminum basket with heat-sinking fins, powered by a big neodymium magnet. An incredible driver that handled amazing power with vanishingly low distortion and linear response. The VR-M90 is a no-excuses, wonderful speaker. The VR-M90 would also be an excellent match with the VR12 (or the smaller--but still 3-way--VR-10). There was also a terrific slimmer 3-way center called the VR920, which was quite possibly the best center BA ever did and one of the best anywhere. It also used the VR tweeter. There were informal plans to do a “VR-M100,” which would have used three 6 ½” woofers reaching the low 30’s and dual 3 ½” mids in a taller enclosure and it would have sold for about $2000-$2500 each (the M80 was $1000 ea; the M90 was $1350 ea.) But the market for very high-end speakers was weakening at the time, and the VR-M100 project was cancelled. All the VR-M’s used the aluminum VR tweeter. The VR-M series was also quite attractive, with its real cherry veneer and creative appearance of the tweeter facing and woofer grille. IMO, some of the nicest-looking speakers ever designed. The ID team of Charles Rozier and Jim Petronio of Rozier Design Studio were responsible. The VR-M50 won a Best Industrial Design award the year it came out for Best Audio Product. The VR1, 2 and 3 were later products, and not even close to being in the same class as the VR40 or VR-M90 in my opinion. Steve F.

Thanks, Minh. Happy Thanksgiving to you and everyone on the Forum! Steve F.

I was at the BAS (Boston Audio Society) meeting in May 1992 when the featured guest was John Buzzotta, the head engineer of the HI series. That meeting write-up is attached. I contacted the BAS's founder and he said it was fine to scan and post BAS articles. The only thing he asked was to provide a link to the BAS site, so here it is: http://www.bostonaudiosociety.org/ Also in that issue is a discussion with Buzzotta about AR's plans to re-introduce the AR-3a into the American market in 1993-4. I don't believe that ever happened, but the "3a" model number did live on in various overseas (mostly Asian, I believe) markets. Ken Kantor's 303 came out in the US market very shortly after, in 1995. There is also a meeting write-up from a 1993 BAS meeting that featured a tour of AR's Canton MA facility and their then-new Classic Series speakers and electronics. Steve F. BAS-Buzzotta,_etc.pdf

Thanks, Minh! Happy 4th to everyone on the Forum! (Including, of course, our many "honorary" Americans!) Steve F.

For some reason, the Advent 2 gets a very bad rap so many years after the fact. I don't know why. I remember when they were introduced, Andy Petite (he hadn't changed his last name back to Kotsatos yet) of Advent presented them to the BAS. I remember the meeting write-up humorously noting that the system resonance was 58 Hz and the price was $58 ea, or "....$1 per Hz." The dual/angled tweeter array was the first--and only--multi-tweeter design ever done by Andy Kotsatos. The speaker is historically notable for that reason alone. Andy described in great detail how he manually positioned the tweeters with modeling clay in several different orientations, then took measurements and did exhaustive listening tests at normal listening positions. In this way, he was able to come up with a tweeter arrangement that had virtually no destructive interference/cancellation in actual use, from normal listener positions, even fairly close up. He did his homework, and he did it right. I don't know why it would be characterized as "...well-intentioned, but misses the mark." Andy had a very definite idea about voicing, and all the Advents of that era had his 'sound.' It entirely possible, of course, to simply not particularly care for Andy's voicing choice, but the actual, technical performance of that tweeter array is quite good. Whether its output has the response shape and level one finds agreeable is a different matter altogether. Another interesting tidbit--he used Onkyo tweeters, because he found their raw FR and PH to be pretty good. I've spoken to him later on, and he actually had approached AR about letting Advent manufacture their 1 1/4" cone tweeter under license, but nothing ever came of that. I hope I don't have my Advent models confused. Is the 2 the one with the angled tweeters or was that the 3? I apologize if I'm barking up the wrong tree. Steve F.

From its inception in 1954, AR was known for the excellence of its 12” bookshelf speakers. The AR-1 was followed in 1958 by the AR-3, then by the -3a in 1967. Major upgrades/improvements followed in 1975 with the AR-10 Pi/11. The AR-91 12” 3-way of 1980 was a compact floorstander rather than a bookshelf speaker, then the AR-78 LS followed in 1983/4, also more of a compact floorstander. The AR-58 came out around 1981-2, and originally it was a direct bookshelf version of the AR-91, with the 1 ½” dome midrange and ¾” dome tweeter. This version was very short-lived, however, and was replaced soon thereafter with the AR-58 LS (there may have been an ‘L’ version first, and an ‘LSi’ version later). UK versions often had their own numbering conventions and didn’t necessarily follow the US’s model numbers. In any event, most versions of the 58 were 12” 3-way speakers with a 4” midrange and a ¾” dome tweeter. The mid and tweeter were often mounted on the same plastic mounting plate, for cosmetic reasons. It was a very good speaker, if not quite up to the standards of the earlier 12” 3-ways. IMO, well worth restoring, with a very solid bass end, and a lively mid/high end, well-dispersed, and with good power-handling. If I recall, sensitivity was around 87 dB 1w/1m, so low-to-average. How much power you need depends on the size of your room and your listening habits. 75 solid WPC is a good starting point. Steve F.

Tom, I agree--the ADS '90 series were excellent loudspeakers. I came very close to buying a pair of 1290's. I also thought the 1290's somewhat slimmer profile made it a more attractive speaker than the 1590, which was somewhat 'chunky.' I seem to remember that these speakers had the unusual option of having a power amplifier attached to the rear of the cabinet in a recess that was made to accept an ADS sub amp. So equipped, these ADS speakers had powered 'subwoofers' and passive mids/highs, pre-dating the so-called Powered Towers of Definitive Technology by some 10 or 15 years. I know I have some lit on these ADS speakers somewhere in my dusty archives, but perhaps you might shed some light on this innovative aspect of their design. It always struck me as strange that these ADS speakers did not enjoy wider critical acclaim (were any of them reviewed by the Big Three?) or more widespread commercial success. Steve F

John, I'm quite impressed and most flattered that you are citing such an old post of mine. It dates from Feb 18, 2003. Here it is again: "Hi Guys, Here's the info that I think you're looking for: The original 18 was essentially an AR-7 with the liquid-cooled version of AR's superb 1 1/4" cone tweeter. It had a crossover frequency of 2000Hz, the same as the 7, but with the new tweeter's greater power handling capability, the 18's power response was somewhat flatter than the 7. The 18 was a truly exceptional small speaker and a great match for the 9. The 18s was pretty much the same, save for some slight cosmetic differences, and is also highly recommended. The 18B had a bull-nosed vinyl cabinet , the same 1 1/4" cone tweeter, 2000Hz crossover, but the tweeter was now centered on the baffle above the woofer, instead of being offset as in the earlier 18's. The woofer also changed, and used a shiny black plastic dustcap. The big change took place with the switch from the B to the BX series. The cabinet got bigger (from 6 5/8" deep to 8 1/4" deep), and the tweeter changed from that great original AR-built 1 1/4" cone to some randomly purchased 1" dome. The crossover went from 2000Hz to 3000Hz, with the expected roughening in power response that physics predicts with an 8" 2-way system. The BXi was similar to the BX, but the crossover rose to 3200Hz. The BX and BXi had stated LF -3dB points of 52Hz vs. the older 18's 62Hz, indicating a change in the design intent for these speakers to a more full-range design. The 18 or 18s is the model you want. The 18B is ok, but stay far away from the BX and BXi." Steve F.

The Web is an undisciplined, lawless, wide-open territory where the only rule that consistently applies is the one the referee gives the two boxers as they touch gloves before the start of a match: "Protect yourself at all times." Not much of real, tangible value comes from the vast majority of chatrooms, hobby sites, etc. A lot of uncorroborated opinion, hearsay, third-party feedback, but not very much that you can actually put your hands on and say, "Now, THAT'S worthwhile. I'll keep that forever." This 3a restoration document is a great piece of work, and it stands in marked contrast to what most of the Web is, and instead stands for what the Web SHOULD be. Thanks to all for your outstanding efforts. Steve F.

Avid Corporation of E. Providence RI offered a series of high-quality acoustic suspension bookshelf loudspeakers in the early thru late 1970’s. If I remember correctly, their initial offerings consisted of the model 100 8” 2-way, the model 102 10” 2-way, and the model 103 10” 3-way. Later, towards the late’70’s, they intro’d the ‘M’ series,a low-diffraction design. The top-of-the-line M-330 was a fair bit bigger than the AR-3a, and featured some very creative thinking. One feature in particular stood out: the dome midrange and tweeter units were surface (not flush) mounted to the speaker’s baffle; The grille frame was solid MDF, with cutouts for the mid and tweeter of the exact diameter and depth of the drivers’ frames. The result was that when the grille was in place, the mid and tweeter were exactly flush with the front plane of the grille, so there was no diffraction from grille molding or cabinet obstructions at all. A recent series of Paradigm speakers featured the same grille design, which just goes to show you that in speakers, what’s old eventually becomes new again. High Fidelity reviewed the M-330 in Mar ‘79, and found it to be fairly good, but not great. HF’s review of the $79.95 ea. Model 100 in Aug 74 was considerably more enthusiastic, and HF opined that the 100 was a truly outstanding speaker in its size/price class. I heard the Avids(100, 102, 103) at various Boston-area consumer hi-fi shows while in college in the early-mid 70’s and always thought they were good-sounding speakers. I never heard the M-330, but was always intrigued by its use of dome MR and HF drivers, and its AS design. It was $400 ea. In 1979, a not inconsiderable price at that time, to be sure. During this time period, Avid also supplied passenger headphones (remember those old ‘air-driven’ units?) to the airline industry. I believe that commercial audio was their main business, and that speakers were something they delved into because of the profit/growth potential of the ‘70’s consumer audio market. Another factoid about Avid: Moses Gabbay was an engineer there during the time of the 102-230-330 speakers. He then went to AR around 1977, and of course came to BA in 1980 or 81, where he directed BA’s engineering and production departments during their phenomenal 20-year growth period. He eventually became President of BA, serving until illness hastened his retirement in 2005. The 70’s were certainly a fascinating time in the US speaker market. Another Avid-like company was Audioanalyst (located in southern CT), who also offered a series of high-quality acoustic suspension speakers. Their A-200 4-way floorstander was a very good product. Steve F.