ra.ra

The drivers in these speakers are very good, and as Tom noted, the AR-93 and 94 seem to combine existing parts into a new format for increased performance in a modest "package" at an attractive price point. With all of the AR's you've acquired, David, it's surprising you've never encountered this tweeter - - the 1-1/4" tweeter had various iterations: with and without fluid; straight or S-shaped tinsel leads; small and large magnets. This tweeter is a favorite of mine, and it paired well with many 8" two-way AR models, such as AR-7, AR-6, AR-4xa, AR-17, various AR-18's .... etc. Shame about the re-foam placement, but despite that error, the work appears to have been well done. Up to you, of course, but I'd probably leave as-is and listen for awhile before even thinking about re-doing the foams. Not sure about the replacement felt around tweeter, but you might find something here - - when you locate the lower % wool material (45% and 75%, color: gray), the price is not so bad for some strips or a small sheet. https://www.mcmaster.com/#felt/=193ha0e

Yeah, no kidding, I guess it's me that deserves your online moniker. Anyway, this is just a heads-up to everyone to know when to stop futzing. I had these AR-6 grilles looking good already, then went too far and ruined them.

I think larry's progress on the right hand grille is coming along well. Aside from trying to prevent any warping of the grille frame, the biggest challenge with this process of trying to reclaim aged grille cloths is finding a balance between gradual lightening, in sequential steps, and assuring that the original fabric maintains its strength and structure. As previously stated, I was using a diluted bleach solution, and that possibly contributes to weakening the aged fibers, but on many grilles I have been able to achieve excellent results with careful applications and monitoring. In the one case where I obviously was not so careful by wetting the grilles one too many times, the tensile forces which occurred during drying resulted in the disaster shown here.

Carnivore gives the best early advice you're going to receive - - start with some reading and you will soon understand a whole lot more about your new speakers.

Whoa....slow down a bit - - this evaluation process may take you a while before figuring out how best to proceed. And welcome to the forum, you've come to the right place for friendly, helpful, experienced advice. The AR-3 is among the most sought-after vintage speaker models, and yours appear to be in great condition. The first thing to do will be to determine whether the high and mid drivers are in fact functional or, as you imply, they might be "bad". It is not at all uncommon for 50 year-old loudspeakers like these to have seriously diminished high frequency output, and the problem just might be with the aged internal electrical components. Other members who have experience with this model will help you out with specific guidance, and the diagnosis will probably require some degree of dis-assembly. To answer your question: yes, you should attempt to repair these, and there is absolutely no reason to ever consider "junking" them. Authentic replacement parts may be difficult to locate and/or be expensive, but there is not yet sufficient information to know what you might need. Be patient and wait for more advice to roll in - - it is very premature to be shopping for replacement drivers before you understand the full nature of any performance issues. With a proper investment of some time, some expense, and a good deal of learning, you could eventually have yourself a fine set of iconic classic speakers to enjoy for decades to come.

Hey, those are looking real good and thanks for the great pics. And I agree with you that a few battle scars give these things even more aesthetic character. With s/n's as low as yours, it's interesting to see that like the pair I showed, your woofers have neither the cross-hatch or the floral damping pattern painted on the cones, whereas larry-b's have both patterns (he probably paid more for that option ). Once you peek inside, here is what you should expect to see. And the most important thing: the dated personal stamp from the assembler.

Just my $0.02, but here is the thread describing the successes (and one failure) I've had when refreshing aged AR grille cloths. lakecats' method sounds like it has produced satisfactory results as well, but I would not be comfortable with the idea of fully submersing the Masonite grille frames. Having said that, all of my AR-4 grille frames are constructed from strips of softwood; therefore, no Masonite. Sidenote: my own observations have shown that the AR-4 cloth is slightly less dense (threads per inch) than what I've encountered with AR-4x's and later models, suggesting that perhaps the original is not authentically replaceable.

Wow, both of you guys have "new" AR-4's that appear to have never been opened, and IMO, the wear and tear of each pair is minimal and all fully restorable. And yes, both pairs appear to have grille cloths in a condition which is definitely good enough to first attempt cleaning and restoration before even considering cloth replacement. Plenty of AR-4 info in these threads to answer a few questions and get up to speed.

Hi RobT, that's a very nice find. I fully agree with Lakecat - - - in present state, they are not good for much unless you restore their functionality, and they are also overdue for a cosmetic facelift. Your suspicions about problem areas are most likely correct - - - work slowly and take great care finding and removing the staples - - a dental pick and a pair of needle nose pliers come in very handy for this task. It's not too difficult. Also, take care removing the woofers - - the cones and surrounds can be a little bit delicate. I have two pairs of AR-4's, including this one pair whose s/n's straddle your pair (XX105 and XX242). They looked nearly identical to yours, and underneath the grilles was 50 years of dust accumulation, as shown. The pots will require attention, and the caps (6uF) should most likely be replaced. Cabinets can be spruced up and the grilles can be refreshed, and eventually you'll have a terrific pair of rare great-sounding, vintage speakers. If I can locate the threads for my projects, I'll try to do so for you.

Yes, I should have clarified that my statement was about original tweeters which experience diminishing output. Once that option finally expires, many of us are grateful to the clever restorers (chris 1, etc.) and experienced researchers and technicians (RoyC, Carl, and many others) who provide us with suitable suggestions for maintaining the HF performance of these Classics. After a successful transplant, I suspect that the max setting for the tweeter control may not be so common.

Well said.... Ditto from me. I could say pretty much the same thing about tweeter controls, but I also do realize that many people (self included) tend to set tweet pots at near maximum in order to squeeze the most out of their shy personalities.

All of these KLH model numbers confuse me, but those two appear to be virtually identical from the exterior. Maybe, just maybe, there might be a slight revision on the inside?.....but enough to necessitate a change in model number? Despite your suspicions about the stenciled "A" on the back plate, the serial number sticker also features the "A", so there is some yet-to-be-determined differentiation between the two. You'll probably have to take a peek inside - - meanwhile here are a few threads which might offer some ideas. From this first link, I suspect what you have is the original grille cloth. http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/library/klh/klh_22_klh_model_twenty-two/klh_22_photos/klh_22_front.html#previous-photo http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/klh-22a-speaker-score.720273/

I was only echoing your earlier enthusiasm for this Mundorf series, but in any case - - - yes, one or two simple NPE's should suffice for this type of application.

Yes, I fully agree, and since I've had limited but positive experiences using Solen caps, I grew curious to challenge those who refer to them as shrill, harsh, or evil. Like many others, I find Dayton caps very similar and an even better bang-for-buck value. The use of The Boxer lyric is very apt here. Yes, I understand their position in the schematic and that the previously rejected 24uF caps have now been bundled for use in the woofer circuit. Through much measurement testing and several examples of obvious physical failures, many of us have agreed that the black/red Callins-Temple caps can be called all sorts of names, but can you explain why the Solen caps, in your consideration, are "evil"? I did go back and look at your reporting on various cap combos, and was pleased to be reminded of your satisfaction with the affordable Mundorf cap. I, too, have been recommending the Mundorf E series for those who, for whatever reasons, feel that a Bennic or Erse NPE cap just won't cut it but are still looking for a low-cost cap solution. My introduction to this line of Mundorfs came via CSP member Klaus from Denmark on this site, and I have tried to spread the knowledge that I've gained from his experiences and reporting. I do understand that your prescription for a re-cap solution was complicated by those pesky, expensive Solen caps lying around, but my comments are mostly questioning the implementation of $60+ worth of caps in a woofer shunt application, as well as all of that soldering, etc. If the need to use your surplus caps had not been a factor, I trust you maybe would have considered this single cap instead.

Carl, I am well aware of the reputation of these black/red caps, and I automatically replace them in all of my projects when I find them - - this is by no means any sort endorsement or testimonial on their behalf, and I agree with your overall assessment - - but I believe you have completely missed my point. I was trying to say that, without the benefit of decades of hindsight regarding these caps and their aging characteristics, the engineers at AR found them suitable to deliver the designed performance for various speaker models, and it can be expected that those speakers performed exceedingly well for their owners for the ensuing years. My challenge was simply about the number and expense of replacement components implemented here in this project. And to AR surround - - I do appreciate your humorous comment about "burn in" - - that gave me a chuckle , but no, my primary intent was not to rankle anyone, and again I commend you for putting those costly large Solen caps to use somewhere. However, I did expect that some feathers might get ruffled with my skepticism, but I think you already know that I have shown interest and tried to provide useful assistance with your project in earlier posts. I have most likely read your previous threads, but perhaps I'll go back for another look. However, I'll be fully prepared to have my eyes glaze over yet again as I read about more hand-wrenching, hair-pulling, and teeth-gnashing over the selection of overpriced replacement capacitors for vintage speakers that originally used inexpensive, plain-Jane components - - - all the while providing very satisfactory results until, of course, the aging process compromised the original specs. My question here is all about the added complexities and costs of "upgrades" weighed against the anticipated expectations and of course, the subsequent performance results. As an aside, I've got no particular allegiance to French manufacturers, but I have used Solen caps in some vintage AR's with excellent success. That said, I have no interest in any 100uF poly caps, Solen or otherwise, for any of my modest applications, but thanks anyway.

I will always applaud the resourceful use of available parts-at-hand, but nevertheless, it must be asked: exactly why were the Solen caps previously deemed to be "incompatible"?......and why are they now purported to be "evil"? And while there is no evidence to suggest that these speakers are now performing with anything other than spectacular results, I do have to question the wisdom of taking a well-designed, inexpensive, five-capacitor crossover and replacing it with an expensive, fifteen-capacitor version. (Yep....15....count 'em!) My challenge is only based in the lack of KISS methodology applied to this solution. As originally designed, the AR-915 (and 91 and 58s and....) was a terrific loudspeaker even with the original dirt cheap Callins or Temple caps, so I'd be curious to know what the expected level of "improvement" is due to this excessive re-cap effort? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle

WAF: the first time I encountered this acronym, I had no idea what the bleep it was, but like yourself, I was amused by the concept. Apparently, there are two versions of the 1700 receiver: early and late - - - if you have capability for two sets of speakers, it sounds like you probably have the later version (with loudness control concentric with balance control), as discussed in link attached. Product info shown below appears to be for early version, so you may want to double check the specs and wiring configurations for multiple sets of speakers. http://audiokarma.org/forums/index.php?threads/strange-mcintosh-1700.113441/

Hi Patrick, and welcome to the CSP forum - - what a great first post! My first step into AR speakers (1970 or '71) was with the AR-4x, and even though the 4xa was a poorly marketed product, I think it is the slightly better speaker model with that 1-1/4" tweeter. I can't help you much with the mix-and-match of various impedance speakers, but knowing that you have Mcintosh power, you're already in a pretty good starting position. I'm pretty sure that many Mac amps (and receivers?) can comfortably reach down into 2-ohm territory. Your primary question about which larger speaker to acquire is not an easy one - - - as others have begun to mention, there are many variables to consider. The 2ax had various iterations, and so did the 3a. Basically, the 5 was mostly consistent except for minor woofer variations. Purchase cost will be one factor, but restoration costs will be a whole other ball of wax, dependent on condition of cabinets, grilles, drivers, badges, and crossovers. Some woofers have cloth surrounds, some have foam ......... etc., etc. The decision is not simply a matter of how much LF bass to purchase. Evaluation of the tweeters and mids is also important - these aged drivers frequently exhibit diminished performance and can be expensive to replace. Also, there is the matter of physical size and visual appeal - - the 3a is only slightly larger than the 5 or 2ax and is considerably heavier, but it does have the unique wide face frame trim that the others do not. Additionally, many different wood veneers were offered for cabinet finish - - - is the WAF a consideration?

That's one of the same connections I was looking at. Attached is a great pic of an AR-58s x-o (courtesy of Roger Weld), which looks just like the 915 assembly drawing.

Thanks, ar_pro, that's the correct drawing, and I may be seeing this incorrectly, but something still looks fishy to me. From the OP's pics, I still don't see the 2-ohm R in series with the 100uF C.......and, why are there three resistors in the x-o pics? I always thought the AR-915 was basically an international version of the AR-91, and I began to suspect that maybe the midrange in the 915 was a slightly different driver that required an extra bit of resistance. But nope, the assembly drawing for the 915 shows the mid p/n as the 032 driver, exact same as the 91. I'm sure this will get figured out, but I'm still a little perplexed.

The crossover assembly drawing (not a schematic) for the AR-915 (and 915 veneer) is located in the Library under "special sections" for AR. It is identical to the one used in the AR-58s, and in fact, shows four coils, five caps, and only two resistors - - just like in David's pic once you remove the switches and their resistors. The assembly notes also state that all resistors should be kept at least 1/2" clear from the x-o panel. If you are unable to locate it, I can post an image for you later.

Concerning where those loose 2-ohm resistors were intended, I believe you are reading this correctly with regards to your terminal marked "T". Also, it appears that the 1-ohm resistor in the right x-o has been removed (along with some glue and masonite). All remaining components appear fully original to me, and although it's mildly irritating to the restoration purist, it's not unusual to find different caps (in your case, the 8uF mid cap) within a "pair" of AR speakers. My understanding of the differences between the 915 and the 91 is pretty much the same as yours, but I think the 915 also had a square top cabinet profile (like the AR-92) and was also offered as an option in real wood veneer as well as vinyl. Looking at the AR-91 schematic - - once you strip away the switches and their associated four resistors - - - what is curious to me is that your x-o's in the 915's have (or had) three resistors each while the schematic for the 91 only shows two (1-ohm for mid and 2-ohm for woofer). From what I see, the mystery 2-ohm resistor in the upper left appears to be in the mid circuit.

Speaking of "the early years", I just found this thread which included a pic of the Mt. Auburn St. building. Am not sure exactly when the street address numbers were revised, but a 1930 map of Cambridge (attached) shows this building as 21 and 23 Mt. Auburn when it was the Boston Bookbinding Co. Inc. The building extends thru the middle of the block to Arrow Street, and I think there is a thread on this site (started by JKent?) about the Baruch-Lang speakers that mentions an Arrow Street address for Henry Kloss' pre-AR enterprise. A very comprehensive book about the history of Cambridge has just recently been released, but I have not yet inspected it for any mention of these specific buildings or the loudspeaker industry in general. It was produced by the MIT Press, and I have long been an admirer of their publications. One of the co-authors is Charlie Sullivan, the "go-to" source regarding Cambridge history. https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/building-old-cambridge My personal feeling is that this project would best be served if kept to a single volume in the 150-page range, with both black/white and color images, and I would love to see the graphics reflect a contemporary look suggestive of upwardly mobile America of the 1950's and 60's. Someone has already mentioned including the "watershed" models, and I want to get in a request to not only discuss the "big boys" (AR-1, 3, 3a, 9's etc.), but to also be sure to cover the more modest models, particularly the hugely successful AR-4x. The entire "classic" lineup should be described within a timeline, marketing rationale, and matrix of features and attributes, including the oddballs (AR-1x) and ne'er-do-wells (AR-8). AR's place within the larger loudspeaker industry is an important topic, and I would also love to see: 1) a "family tree" of industry personnel, beginning with Villchur and Kloss and then spreading into the principal AR staff as well as all of the offshoot speaker companies that had significant ties or origins with Acoustic Research. Also, it would be highly informative to include: 2) one or two maps to illustrate the concentration of highly-regarded audio companies in the immediate metro Boston region - - - perhaps Cambridge deserves one of its own (AR, KLH, Advent, a/d/s, etc.), but also a larger view of a portion of New England (AR - Norwood and Canton, EPI - Newburyport, Avid - Providence, Bose - Framingham, HH Scott - Maynard, and on and on) might be effective to communicate the impact of AR in being instrumental to the establishment of a burgeoning industry. Edit: Well, never mind part of this blurb - - I had the chance today to look at the new Cambridge history book I was praising, and despite its back-breaking heft of 900+ pages, there is only scant mention of any of these buildings, and none of the writing pertains to the subject at hand.

That's a fine-looking pair of vintage components. Not to derail this thread about the Sixteen integrated amp, but I'm curious about the volume control on the Eighteen tuner - - does this thing have some sort of pre-amp included in the circuitry?

Hey, that's a great looking amplifier, and I suspect a fairly rare beast. Very simple, spartan appearance, and it's very unusual to see a two-step loudness switch. More knowledgeable KLH fans may be able to date or comment on this product, but what's curious to me is that the rear labeling suggests a date prior to the use of zip codes in addresses (1963), at a time when tube amplifiers (HH Scott, e.g.) were still popular in home audio. Rear views attached.