Aadams

If you intend to use a single pair there will be no appreciable difference. Multiples I would go with the CR65. Neither speaker will do well below 120hz. Adams

Start a thread in Mods and Tweaks or other speakers and we can talk. Not sure about what you are wanting to do if it is like what is in this thread below Then the CR65 is your best bet. See you in mods and tweaks or Other speakers. Adams

MO You might want to start a thread in the mods and tweaks or other speakers forums. This is getting way off of AR topics. BTW I thought you were referencing the M & T thread and not the BA thread. You also might want to take a look at the Ligs 92 db thread. Adams

My apologies MO Talk about thread creep………… I never expected that BA CR65 thread to land in a thread about the AR98. If you are interested in using the CR65s in that way you should begin reading the thread at the post of April 7, 2018. The “two equalizer” version with two dissimilar amps works but is very difficult to manage and no longer exists. I just recently added an edit to the first post of the thread stating that readers should skip to that date. The simplified and way better version is still in use as the tops to an AR12 inch passive woofer. Adams

Assuming everything works, and based on what you show in the photos; the tweeters are way wrong, the mids are probably ok though at least one is a replacement but the woofers alone with cabs could be a reason to purchase these if the price is right. That looks like black powder coat on the cabs. Edit: My current guess is they are covered with felt Adams

Are you saying they are 8" 3 ways from the 1980s? Can you post a good photo?

If cost benefit is a genuine concern to the OP, it might be helpful to tell him the magnitude of improvement in sound quality that comes from using the more expensive solutions as opposed to using all Dayton NPE, for example, which would very inexpensive by comparison and merely replicate the original design and sound. Adams

I think a previous owner tried to bypass the pots and I think it is the incorrect way to do it. You definitely have extra wires but we can't see where they go. I recommend using a plastic bag and temporarily remove as much fiberglass as necessary to get photos showing a comprehensive view of what has been done. Are both speakers this way? If you have mechanical aptitude there is enough info at this site to help successfully replace pots with Lpads. Adams

To understand another man’s point of view it is often helpful to know how he gets paid. This is one of those times.

Top 16 most popular topics in CSP (across all forums) Note: Number 14 is from the Kitchen.

I call this configuration an AR98T1w but, essentially, this is a comparison of the three upper drivers of the AR9 to the corresponding drivers of the AR9 LSi. Both systems are indistinguishable in the far field, say 10 ft away. Moving in from 10 ft, the difference becomes apparent and seems to be primarily related to speaker placement. The LSi can be made to image close in like an AR9 with a clear image that makes you seek the center but, with a position change, it can also mimic an AR3a’s expansive sound stage in the nearfield. If the 98 is toed in or set out further away from boundaries, it holds an image for some distance just like the AR9 but near the wall, as shown below, it generates an exquisite far field sound up close, just like a 3a but without having to fuss with tweeter and mid controls. I think the LSi series is more like the highest refinement of the AR classic domes than the next iteration of the original AR9. The LSi sound is what I would expect from a perfectly balanced pair of 3as but somehow more delicate than either the AR9 or 3a, perhaps because of the point source effect of the tweeter/mid combo. It is unfortunate the LS series was released without the “improvement”. Now, after hearing the difference between the LS and LSi, it is no mystery, to me, why the AR9LS was not viewed by the public as a worthy successor to the AR9. In this speaker arrangement, against the wall, the difference is most noticeable in the near field playing large ensemble (classical) music. The AR9 tends to present an orchestra in left and right halves, with not much in the middle, The LSi soundstage is broad, left and right are apparent but the center of the orchestra is integrated in the way it would be presented in the center rows of seats in an auditorium. It is like the AR3a in the way one can raise or lower the volume as though changing audience seating from front to rear. Again, this refers to orchestra and many live venue recordings listening within 4 to 7ft. For studio recordings at this listening distance, the difference is not so apparent though, at times the LSi seems to have a more realistic mid-range, a quality I am not certain could be noticed if the speakers were not side by side. Things could change but, at this moment, I say the LSi trio of midrange and tweeter drivers produces the best sound I have heard from an AR speaker. Aadams

9LSI is a high standard. How could you tell the other speakers were better? Were they in the same room or perhaps even side by side? This is merely a question of curiosity and not a challenge. Adams

I was a JBL fan in the 70s and wanted to build a house for Khorns. I thought efficiency was a primary attribute. I am over it thank God. You are correct and Dudley is in an audio hell of his own making. The ARs you mention smoke almost any JBL of that era and any Klipsch up to today. Adams

The AR98ls has been resurrected in the form of an AR98T. The “i” components have been added to the crossover and the woofer has been disconnected making it a 3 way system with 12db/octave roll off beginning at 200hz. The result is an AR98LSi/T meaning it is a top for a subwoofer. I have temporarily pulled the 3a tops from the 31w and replaced them with the 98T to form an AR98T1w. The 98t is totally passive in that its signal is full range into its crossover while the subwoofer is low passed at 200hz 24db/octave. I thought some audible effect might occur with the mismatched slopes but have yet to detect anything that sounds like a problem. I have listened for 3 hours to a variety of music and am confident the sound is good enough that I should take the time to compare them to the AR9s. The 98 has no attenuators; all the AR9 attenuators are set to zero. The signal path, source, pre-amp, equalizer, etc. is identical except for the power amps. The two systems sound identical in the far field and different in the near field but I am not sure how to describe the nature of the difference at this time. I will report after more listening.

What are you calling a gasket? Can you supply a photo? The surround on AR3a woofers is applied to the top of the cone and the top of the masonite ring attached to the metal frame. Adams

The woofers having been repaired means the speakers have been opened within the last 10 years, at which time they may have been recapped as well. Just my two cents, but if they were mine I would not touch them. The gain from replacing the 1/2 inch foams is not worth the risk of trying to remove and replace them. You said they sound good to you so, even if you recap you certainly won't get a dramatic difference in sound or perhaps even a clearly perceptible difference. The biggest difference you will hear will be from experimenting with room placement and equalizer settings. For example, the position in which you have them pictured is a good one for de-emphasizing bass, in favor of low midrange. I think the 10pi manual is located in the site library and can tell you more about how to use the bass compensation circuitry which was only on the 10pi. Adams

Nice examples. From this distance the drivers look original and and cabinets well preserved with what appear to be original foam grills and new surrounds on the woofers. There are some 10pi experts here somewhere that can tell you if they are first or second series. You must already know the ADD series was made between 1975 and 1979. If you are looking for specific dates, about the only way to know is look on the backs of the drivers if they are are original, which the tweeter and mid appear to be. Adams

Yes and you might consider starting a new thread when you return. Adams

I want to close the loop on this thread. I came close to removing the Masonite boards but was advised to hold off to wait for a better idea. Meanwhile I found, in this forum from 2010, where member Briodo posted this thread http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?/topic/6040-ar9lsi-info-needed/&_fromLogin=1 containing another link to a pdf that explains in detail, a procedure to recap this specific board. I have included a summary image below. I will not be removing my boards or recapping because I decided to pay an expert to read the circuit diagrams and tell me what exactly needed to be done to install the LS “improvement”. It turns out the “improvement” does not change any capacitor values and is limited to additional resistors and polarity changes that can performed without molesting the boards. I got lucky. Adams

Yes Original AR woofers.

It would be far easier and less expensive to convert these to passive subwoofers than to restore them to 3a form.

I thought someone who knows the answer to your question would have replied by now. It seems most folks solder the wires onto the Lpads after setting the shaft in the hole. You can also solder pigtails onto the LPads before installing and then make the crossover connection with wire nuts.

You'll be OK. Your 11 woofer is a Tonegan replacement which is good but IMO not as good as the 3a woofer which is closer to the original that was in the 11. Those 3a woofers are getting scarce be careful. Adams

The quick answer is yes. Supply photos of both woofers for a more definite answer.

Unqualified Yes to the first question and recommended Yes to the second. Adams