Jump to content
The Classic Speaker Pages Discussion Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Robert_S

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

5,813 profile views
  1. Hello, Regarding John's comment on the AR-3a Improved tweeter, he acknowledged that he was mistaken in his belief that the tweeter used was the ferrofluid cooled version. It was, as evidenced to date, the same tweeter as used in the AR-3a. For more on the subject of the AR-3a Improved, the topic/thread linked to above may prove useful. Robert_S
  2. Hold Up! If the AR-925E that you are considering are the pair currently on eBay, UK, then I would advise that you avoid these, due to the fact that none of the drivers look to be original, let alone AR drivers. (It is possible the mid-ranges are original AR, certainly the faceplates, but if so they have been modified.) Caveat emptor is more than appropriate, in my opinion, for these . . . abominations. If you are looking for something more substantial and authoritative than the AR-18LS (which, though an excellent speaker, has inherent sonic limitations, due to its (bookshelf) form factor, especially regarding bass and maximum output level, when compared to the floor-standers) — a far better option would be the pair of AR-92, that are also on the auction site. These look to be in very nice condition, with original drivers. The dent in one of the mid-range drivers is not a serious issue, fixable in my experience. These drivers are how the ones in the AR-925 should look. (The AR-925 was basically a later iteration of the AR-92, same components, in a less costly cabinet design; both excellent speakers.) Hope that is of some help. Robert_S
  3. To my eyes, your concern regarding the tweeters (one replete with botched drilling/alignment attempt) is appropriate. The correct tweeters should be as depicted below: Robert_S
  4. See also: The mystery has been solved Modifying AR9 Bass Crossover section Robert_S
  5. Of relevance to this topic, see attached excerpt from the document "The AR91 and the AR92" by Timothy Holl: Thanks to ra.ra for, in a recent post, bringing the entire document to light. (Perhaps a copy could be placed in the relevant library section?) Robert_S
  6. You may have already located the AR-9 Owner's Reference Manual, but if not, you can find the recommended method for fusing, therein: For a high-resolution downloadable copy of the full manual (courtesy of CSP member passport), see below: AR9 Reference Manual, high quality scan, one PDF file Regarding the 8µF cap in parallel with the upper midrange, my understanding of how the (is-it-a-6-or-an-8) ambiguity arose is detailed in the following thread: The mystery has been solved In my opinion, the caps referenced in xmas111's list above, as #5, are not the correct value. As ever, I would reference what you have in your AR-9 (assuming that they are original components), before proceeding. Robert_S
  7. The following post details one DIY approach, regarding the "acoustically transparent open cell polyurethane foam" insets. (Note: some older topics/threads appear to be displayed in reverse chronological order.) http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?showtopic=1533&p=57843 See aslo: http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?showtopic=6150 As far as I know, not all AR-9 and AR-90 were fitted with said parts when new. I'm assuming that you are referring to the foam, as pictured below, and not the acoustic-blanket material. Robert_S P.S. Problem? What problem?!
  8. To the best of my knowledge, the official AR "Specifications and performance curves for the AR Amplifier" and "Specifications and performance curves for the AR Universal Amplifier" information sheets were identified as L-1609 and LIT 1610 respectively (this being printed on the lower left corner of the sheet showing the curves). There is no mention of Delrama on said documents. It is possible that the Delrama branded (product announcement) tech sheets are not, per se, the sole 'original' AR literature — in that they may have been prepared specifically for (or by) Delrama, with reference to their own distributive/publicity purposes. Robert_S
  9. I have two examples of the AR Amplifier, both are the Universal model. Of these two, the version with the lower serial number (A0227xx) does not have an output for headphones, whereas the later one (A0254xx) is replete with front panel spkr/phones selection switch and headphones jack. Another difference between the two amplifiers in question is regarding the AR logo printed on the front panel. The unit with the headphones jack has just "AR", the other one has "AR INC." (I have, however, also seen photographs of regular models with the plain "AR" logo, see here for example.) The pictures below are not mine, but are included for reference: One further external variation I've noticed is that some units have a more elaborate perforated enclosure for the rear heat sinks, as shown below: Robert_S
  10. To the best of my knowledge, there is no ambiguity regarding the AR-90 crossover Blueprints and Schematics that we have available on this site. Regarding the AR-9, specifically the cap in parallel with the upper midrange, my understanding of how the misreading arose is detailed in the following thread: The mystery has been solved Robert_S
  11. You're welcome David. I'm quoting "finely shredded" directly from the Assembly Notes: For a while I had some AR-925 (similar form factor to the AR-93), the wadding in them was the same as in my AR-915s, AR-90 and AR-18s: white polyester in soft-centered blanket form, sometimes cut into a few pieces, to more easliy enable the specified distribution I'd guess. The finely-shredded probably refers to the composition of the material. Hope that helps. Robert_S
  12. According to the assembly notes for the AR-93, there should should be 20oz of finely shredded polyester, evenly distributed throughout the cabinet, with an additional 2.5oz in the midrange cavity. Robert_S
  13. Certainly, I don't mind. It's already been through some resurrective 'shopping (see original below). Due to the relative density of the base-tone/paper-colour, and uneven lighting, it's problematic, far from perfect as a candidate for reprint. Also, the uploading feature of this site downsizes JPEGs, hence the prior use of an attached PDF, allowing for higher resolution. Before & After Retouch_01 (low resolution): Robert_S
  14. This one is a bit stained and faded (replete with a previous owner's handwritten notes), but you are welcome to see if you can salvage a usable print, until something better surfaces. Robert_S Low resolution JPEG: High resolution PDF (@400 PPI): AR-4xa_Label.pdf
  • Create New...