AR surround

This is what is known as a "champagne problem." Really nice job on these units, and I'm glad that you will be enjoying both pairs of speakers.

I cringe when I hear "moved to the garage." That is often the beginning of the end as there is no climate controls usually.

Big speakers require that one sits at least a certain distance from them for a properly 'integrated' sound field. I have both AR9's and AR90's in a surround sound system. I found that I needed to have the 90's (surrounds) at about 6 feet from my MLP in order for the sound to be integrated. Anything placement closer than that resulted in starting to notice the individual drivers doing their thing. But I have to wonder if integration of the sound between the LMR and the UMR is more important than that between the UMR and the tweeter. I will be curious about your observations after you A/B the 9's and 9LSi with the repaired driver in the latter; and if moving further away from the speakers equalizes the differences.

Lacquer thinner or MEK should have worked. But since it didn't, try 91% alcohol or denatured alcohol. If that doesn't work, try acetone.

During the course of my AR9 and AR90 refurbishment project, I noticed that the AR9 cabinet resonated significantly more than that of the AR90, so I made some structural modifications to the AR9 as shown in the annotated photos below. Did these changes make a dfference? I don't know. I made all modifications, including recapping and coil realignment to both speakers at the same time, so this was not a controlled experiment. I do know that the AR9 cabinets no longer resonate as much. Bottom line: Whether they made a difference or not, I'm happy with how my AR9's sound. (Just don't ask me to move them around with all that extra weight. LOL)

Absolutely gorgeous restoration, Giovanni! I commend you for your patience, effort and perseverance.

The test only went up to 8k. Apparently, that is the standard audiology test. According the online tests I can hear up to 10k. It used to be 11k, which used to be 12k...

All of this discussion is great, but what I'm truly waiting for is an advancement that will give old ears the frequency response of that of a new born baby. (Just had my ears tested. They are just fine up to 8000 Hz. After that...)

I have auditioned several tower speakers over the years. As I've noted many times before, I find modern speakers to sound more detailed than the AR9, but in an antiseptic sort of way. Also, these speakers that reveal more detail...well, they can be absolutely grating and unforgiving when playing many re-mastered redbook CD sources. No wonder vinyl has made a resurgence. A number of years back, I had the opportunity to A/B a pair of AR9's with KEF 105's. Which did I prefer? It depended on the program material: for classical music I preferred the KEF, for pop/rock I preferred the AR9. But both of these systems were wonderful and probably still are. Many people like the B&W speakers for the characteristics that you have noted, David. Yet others complain of listening fatigue with B&W speakers. Weak bass can make the highs and mids sound somewhat clearer. I've been remixing songs using DeMix Pro. I have used it in some instances to extract the bass stem, boost it, and remix it into the song. Often, more than a judicious amount of boost to that bass stem diminishes clarity. This reminds me of when I auditioned Revel F32 floor standers. Really nice clarity (antiseptic, though.) I mentioned to the salesman that they lacked low bass. He said that they needed one of those $3000 Revel subwoofers. Sheesh! 😂

The AR18 is arguably the most remarkable AR speaker that I have ever heard...a wee speaker with big ambitions.

I agree with your comparison. I had an opportunity to audition a KEF 105 vs the AR9. The KEF 105 was very precise, etc etc. I found that I liked the way it handled classical music more so than the AR9. The moveable heads really had that 'cool' factor and accommodated optimization for the sweet spot. However, when switching to rock / popular music I preferred the AR9. I do not care that the AR spec calls for placing the AR9 against the back wall, etc. Mine sound much better and more 'holographic' and with more depth when pulled out into the room and toed in towards the main listening position.

Are you going to update the SPICE diagram to reflect that both speakers have the same inductors? I ask because I am using AR9's as front speakers and AR90's as surround speakers in a home theater setup. I had to add some additional series resistance to the tweeter and UMR of the AR90's to achieve a response closer to that of the 9's.

AR owner since 1972: AR5, AR3a, AR7, AR9, AR90, AR48, AR915 I personally would not spend a lot of money on a vintage speaker for the collector's value. I would rather buy new. Of the ones mentioned in the article, I've only heard the Vandersteen 3A. They are very nice speakers. Every "modern" speaker that I've auditioned has very impressive, detailed sound..but I would describe it as more antiseptic than musical especially with digital sources. Perhaps my ears are tuned to the sound of the AR9 series. That is fine with me.

Sorry that the ECaps didn't work out for you, Kent. Perhaps I should have mentioned that I paid $1 per capacitor for precision matching by Sonic Craft. But that was over six years ago now. I bundled the 22uF and 2.2uF caps for the UMR on my AR9's and AR90's. I found the packing slip this morning with the measurements:

While I understand that it isn't easy to move these speakers around, have you tried repositioning them? I once had my AR90's placed relative to my listening position that turned out to be a bass null which yielded unacceptable results.