Jump to content

rl1856

Members
  • Posts

    108
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

4,172 profile views

rl1856's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  • First Post Rare
  • Collaborator Rare
  • Week One Done Rare
  • One Month Later Rare
  • One Year In Rare

Recent Badges

0

Reputation

  1. Amazing that original AR domes can be rebuilt. Points raised in this thread bring up several questions: The response of a 60yr old driver, exposed to the elements for 60yrs, is definitely not the same now as when new. Restoration of the driver will improve response. However is the output of a restored driver approximately the same, or different than a new driver 60yrs ago ? If the output is greater, is there additional strain on the driver, and on fragile 60yr old VC wire ? Much of what is considered treble response, occurs at frequencies under 10khz. Given AR crossover and driver design, the midrange contributes a lot more to treble response than most understand. We know that AR dome tweeters have deteriorated after 60yrs. How much have AR dome or cone midrange drivers deteriorated after 60yrs ? Thanks !
  2. The key is clean power from an amplifier capable of operating into a 4ohm load. 75wpc is good; 150wpc is better. Clean transient power for a millisecond during a crescendo is more easily tolerated than clipping distortion at a lower volume level. You mention that your speakers have original drivers, meaning the tweeter and midrange domes are 54 years old. Be careful when turning up volume.
  3. I have extensive experience with classic AR speaker. IMO the 5 sounds better than the 2a/ax. Difference is in the midrange. The 5 sounds more natural and very slightly clearer to my ears. If I had to pin down an area of difference I would say the 2a/ax sounds slightly nasal in comparison. Some prefer the 2ax, and contemporary reviews mentioned the very close sonic signatures of both speakers. Some felt they were virtually indistinguishable. My experience is that the 2ax and 5 can sound better in room than a 3a because deep bass response is better coupled to the room using the smaller speakers. I have a pr of AR92 speakers that sound different than my pair of AR5 speakers. More forward, with better hf extension, but in my room bass response seems slightly less overall. Maybe it is the placement of the woofer higher up in the cabinet, offering less interaction (and reinforcement) with the floor boundary ?
  4. The 10p/11 dome tweeter allowed for the speaker to have flat on axis FR. The 3/3a/2a/2ax/5 tweeter design was noticeably stepped down in output compared to the woofer and midrange when operated at the recommended pot level. One had to turn the pot to max to bring the tweeter up about 3db or so in output, at the expense longevity. The 10p/11 dome tweeter was a different design, and is not backward compatible with earlier speakers unless level compensation is included. One can certainly say that each successive AR model range represented and overall improvement is what was possible. But questions remain- improvement in what areas ? Were the ferofluid, flat response domes better sounding than the earlier stepped down FR design ? Some say no. Which would RA and EV use if given the choice ? Would they be responding to market conditions, or their own preferences ? By the early 70's the market had changed, and their personal preferences may not have matched market preferences as well as they did 5-10yrs earlier.
  5. What would you say if you could purchase a new speaker with the following features: Hardwood cabinet 10 inch acoustic suspension woofer 3 inch cone midrange 1 inch dome tweeter 8ohm nominal impedance LF response -3db at 45hz. The description should remind you of a specific speaker. In fact the above is currently available- someone has resurrected KLH and introduced an updated Model 5. Begs the question of why someone hasn't done the same for AR and the AR 2ax.... Early reviews are favorable, with many complimenting the quality of bass response. It seems that current reviewers have no experience with classic AS speakers, and are surprised at the extension of quality of bass response. Interesting development all around I would say.
  6. Fisher 500c would be adequate, as would a 500b. Dynaco ST70, Eico HF87, Heathkit AA121 all would be sufficient. Just about any of the Cayin/Prima Luna/Jolida EL34 integrated amps would be good matches. Higher power is better, but not as necessary with the 2ax due to an easier load.
  7. I am referring to the tweeter shown in picture #28 on page 33 of the AR3a restoration guide. Thank you.
  8. I do not have a supply, but know of a pair that is available.
  9. I understand the 211003-1 tweeter is from the KK designed AR303 series. However I find few references to this tweeter in forum archives, and one reference on the last page of the AR3a restoration guide. I re-read the Stereophile review of the AR303. Overall FR sloped downward, with treble response noticeably less than MR response. However, treble dispersion was reasonable, holding up well to 10khz at 45-50' off access. Subjective comments noted that in room dispersion somewhat compensated for the declining on-axis response slope. I would like to find the electrical characteristics of this tweeter; sensitivity, impedance, FR, dispersion characteristics and of course opinions from those who have experience with this tweeter. Thank you !
  10. A single Dynaco MK-2 or MK-3 would be a near perfect pairing for your speaker and intended use. MAC 60 or EICO HF50/60 may be better, but are considerably more expensive. A Dynaco MK-2 or 3 is relatively cheap, and easy to restore. It will deliver 50-60w of clean power, and is the amp used by AR for demonstration of the AR1, AR1W and AR3. One of these days Ill get around to restoring my Janszen Z400 and Z350 speakers....Each is a 10inch woofers with a pr of electrostatic panels. Good Luck.
  11. OK then- a drop in for the AR9-10-11-12 series, but requires a coil to match an AR3a (and presumably an AR5). Has anyone measured on axis and off axis response ? Has anyone determined sensitivity ? Has anyone determined what size coil is needed for this tweeter to match the AR crossover ? Thank you.
  12. Is this dome tweeter truly a drop in replacement ? I searched the archives and saw references, but nothing definitive. Seller advertises the dome as a replacement for the 8ohm tweeter in the AR2ax, 5 and LST. https://www.ebay.com/itm/AR-Acoustic-Research-Replacement-8-ohm-Tweeter-AR-2ax-AR5-LST-2-MT-4121-8-/162689351715?hash=item25e10a8023 Is it drop in, or are crossover modifications required ? Thank you.
  13. I have read AD's content since the days of Listener Magazine. He has a specific preference window for audio equipment and reproduction: Class A SET driving horn loaded, or very efficient reflex loaded speakers. He also seems to be of independent spirit- he deliberately arrives at his conclusions. Over the years he has gained a reputation for being "vintage" friendly. I think many people have suggested he review this or that component, or investigate this or that technology. When he feels pushed in one direction, he often pushes back. A few years ago he wrote about his (limited) experience with a Marantz 8B. The unit was freshened by a few new caps, but was largely stock, meaning 55+yrs old. His comments were very much a case of damning with faint praise. Other times he brings up vintage alternatives that are outside his narrow window, and again his disdain is palpable. He often mentions issues/questions brought up by listeners, but are contrary to his opinions- again mostly damning with faint praise. Consider that Acoustic Suspension speakers represent a 180' shift from his beloved Altecs or Devore high efficiency speakers and require something completely different than a SET amp to drive them. In that light, his comments are almost predictable. AD is a senior editor of a high profile publication (within a niche hobby) thus it is regrettable that he sometimes reacts in this way. One would think he would either refrain from commenting, or have someone more open minded address the issues. It think it is unreasonable to expect a full suite of Pollyanna reviews, but is an open minded reviewer too much to ask for ?
  14. AD's opinions did not surprise me. He is opinionated, and has a specific preference when it comes to equipment. He just doesn't like anything that challenges his paradigm. What was troubling were the factual errors included in his prose. He stated that as efficiency goes down, distortion goes up and uses this "fact" to denigrate AS designs. Yet he does not address the crucial fact that AR (and most AS) designs have been universally praised for their low distortion deep bass. Distortion being notably lower than what is delivered by reflex designs, and bass which is deeper and cleaner than what a Khorn can deliver at equivalent frequencies. AD states that AR speakers were introduced at the dawn of high power transistor amps...forgetting that the AR 1 was introduced in 1954, about 10yrs before SS amps were market viable. He advances the notion that the science behind AS designs does not work. He then uses the fact that there are few true AS designs in the current marketplace as proof that the concept is flawed. Ken Kantor posted in this forum (in 2008 ?) that it was more expensive to produce a good AS speaker compared to a ported design, and that technology had advanced enough that ported designs could deliver similar performance from a smaller box. I posted about the inaccuracies to another forum that is frequented by SP authors. The editor's response was that AD has opinions and can say what he wants.
×
×
  • Create New...