genek

Unless you're planning on sending 1 MHz signals through your speakers, waste of money.

The Euro-built ARs that I've seen all had backs finished with grey-brown speckled paint, but these appear to be plain particle board. Maybe they predate the Euro-licensed versions and were imported from the USA?

The AR-1's low end is quite similar to the later 3, 3a, etc. (yes, LST as well); Except for the lowering of the woofer/mid crossover frequency that happened in the AR-3a, the low end of AR's 11" woofer models didn't change all that much until the dual woofer AR-9 came on the scene. The 755a full-range the AR-1 used as a mid/high driver was a hugely overrated speaker. The sound was smooth enough in the voice range - not surprising when you consider that it was originally designed to be a PA speaker - but it started rolling off at around 10kHz, and by 13 kHz there was nothing there. If there was no such thing as vintage speakers, I'd be checking out Yamaha's new NS-5000, the modern reimagining of their NS-1000 with 12" woofer and dome mid and tweeter. It's bass reflex rather than acoustic suspension, but initial reviews describe the lows as "tight," the highs as "sweet," and the soundstage as "big and expansive." It will probably also have that "modern antiseptic" sound quality, but fixing that is what tone controls and equalizers are for, isn't it? Unfortunately, it blows the budget of this discussion with a $15k MSRP. No idea if anyone still sells new audio at discounts.

I already know what they sounded like, and if your preference is AR-9's, you won't care much for them. If it was my $10k, there's be a pair of LSTs or 9s undergoing cost-is-no-object restoration, and I'd pocket any change.

The AR-3 used the same tweeter. It was introduced in 1958.

First generation 2ax was 1964. Earlier models may have used the same drivers. Hard to imagine drivers sitting in factory parts storage that long, though. Any sign that driver's may have been replaced?

The AR-1 is really a collector's item more than a serious audio gear option. Would you choose a 57 T-bird over a modern Mustang GT? The only speaker in the TAS article that I've actually heard is the Harbeth, and that one is really more like an AR-4 on steroids. I doubt I'd ever be willing to drop anything near $10k on a pair of speakers anyway. First experience with ARs: uncle who owned AR-1s and 2s and took me to the GCS listening room and the Carnegie "Live vs Recorded" demo. Bought my first ARs (1975 2ax) as a graduation present. Since than have picked up 6s, 3as and a variety of newer, smaller items like ms1s and an MC.1 center channel from the Holographic series. Plus a bunch of AR turntables that I've fixed up and sold off.

Kent is the go-to person for replacement level controls.

P/N 210074-0 in the 1986 AR parts list. The 10" poly cone woofer was used in the Post-Classic B and TSW series.

I was never into motorcycles.

How will you be shaping the mesh? I expect the titanium will be a bit harder to work than the aluminum was.

A&R Cambridge Limited is Arcam, not Acoustic Research. Moving this to Other Speakers and Electronics, but you'd be better off posting this to Audiokarma's Solid State forum.

As I recall, Zilch was not very happy with his AR-2-based econowave and preferred Advents for his 10" projects. He did econowave a bunch of 8" AR-4s over the years though. Most of those projects were discussed at length in threads over on Audiokarma. Zilch did participate in this CSP discussion about replacing the AR 3/4" dome tweeter with a waveguide, not in The Kitchen, but right here in Mods and Tweaks:

It may end up there eventually. I am intrigued by your impression that the first video (which we now know is "before") sounds better than the second ("after").

Would probably help if you identified what the clips are supposed to be.

I don't have headphones (not counting cellphone earbuds, which I have plenty of but don't consider worthy of being called "high fidelity"). Did you think one sounded better than the other, or were they just "different?"

White discoloration is moisture that has penetrated into the finish but not into the wood. Black discoloration is moisture that has penetrated through the finish into the wood fibers (iron in the water has chemically reacted with tannins in the wood). White comes off with finish removal. Black can only be removed by bleaching. You can't sand it off, because it's essentially dyed the wood fibers all the way through. Your best bet for sandthrough is to apply a topcoat finish rather than a penetrating one. Oil finish over touchup will never look the same as the wood, and if you oil first the oil will make the exposed particle board darker and harder to conceal. Apply a light coat of sanding sealer, followed by a first coat of varnish or lacquer, then touch up the sandthrough with paint or color sticks, toner and graining pens, followed by a second coat of varnish or lacquer. You will never find one single colored cover that will be a match for your base color. Your best bet is to get a kit containing different shades and some toner, apply a lighter shade to cover and then several light applications of toner until you get a good match, then grain. You must apply sealer and a first coat before touchup. You cannot touch up raw wood and get a match when a finish is applied.

My guess is that one is "before," and the other is "after." But since both videos sound identical, either the perceived improvement is too subtle for phone recordings on computers to capture or there isn't any actual improvement and the exercise has simply resulted in a method of reproducing original sound with a new driver and some crossover mods.

The 1974 FTC amplifier rule states that power should be rated at continuous wpc over a specified frequency range with a specified distortion. Like this "100 WPC, 20-20kHz, 0.05% THD). This seems to be widely ignored by retail advertisers (though most manuals do comply), and offhand I can't recall the last time I heard about anyone getting dinged for violating it.

Modern electronic music often goes to down to 20Hz. A 32' pipe organ can produce a C0 note at 16.5Hz. The 64' Boardwalk Hall pipe organ in Atlantic City, NJ can produce a C3 note at 8 Hz (if you ever get a chance to hear it, go to the bathroom first).

To clarify, the criteria is the intent to change the original sound. Otherwise, every instance of someone replacing the tweeter in an AR-3a with a HiVi QiR - or even the tweeter from an AR-11 - could push a discussion over the line. So for this topic, the decisive moment was:

Probably because unlike the dome tweeters, these drivers hardly ever seem to fail.

Have you tried the parts dept at BA?

Jab, there's no time limit. What determines whether a discussion stays here or moves to Mods, Tweaks and Upgrades is whether it's about repairing, restoring and maintaining original speakers or about redesigning them into something else.

It has been well established that there are no "similar drivers" to AR woofers being produced new. Even woofers being offered as "AR replacements" don't meet the specs required to produce original performance. Yes, you could redesign the cabinets and crossovers to work with new drivers. You could also rip apart the spiders and voice coils of new drivers and try to rebuild them to meet original specs. But unless you are an inveterate tinkerer doing it all for fun, that's a lot of time, effort and money to avoid refoaming an old woofer. It'll also get your discussion moved to the Mods, Tweaks and Upgrades forum.