Aadams

You should look for the latest info on the HiVi. I think all you need for the 2ax is the coil. No capacitor changes. There is a difference in sound between original 3/4 dome and the HiVi but you must know what you are listening for. You will be fine with the HiVi. Adams

Blue Lick This is good news but you will discover your tweeters are still near useless. Good luck. Adams

Below is a picture of a more conventional recap in 2ax. Many folks cut the wires at the wax block and leave it in place. Your speakers appear to be fine examples of the early 70s 2ax. They should sound smoother than the OLA but the bass will not go quite as deep. The OLAs will sound more exciting which doesn't mean they are more accurate but they do have that bass and a screaming tweeter. The NPE caps are fine. When I compare your before images and read your description of the after image it sounds like you did it correctly but the way you did it is too unconventional for me to make any more suggestions except that you may have a cold solder joint. My approach at this stage would be pull the pots and solder pigtail extensions of the correct wire color on the pots and capacitors then reconnect everything with wire nuts until I was sure I was ready to solder. Also If you cut any of what appears be bare wire that could also be your problem but I don't see where did that. Lastly, your tweeters should be rebuilt or replaced with the HiVi mod. I guarantee they have significantly degraded with time. It is a feature of these tweeters. The cost difference is significant and depends on if you value authenticity. After your tweeters are repaired then you have a valid basis of comparison with your Advents. Don't toss your tweeters they are marketable even if dead. Your speakers will be OK. Here is the link and the photo. http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?/topic/9246-ar-5-and-2ax/ EDIT: I just saw at the bottom of your post where the mids are working well and the tweeters are weak but you didn't say if the "muddiness" is in both speakers? Now I am thinking they are wired correctly but it is odd that you would have identical muddiness in both woofers. Have you disconnected the jumpers from the middle post and just listened to the woofers? Adams

More Classic model tweak info: The challenge for the 3a in this AR358 configuration, when compared to an AR9, will not be bass output but the imaging capability. While it is fact, a properly functioning AR9 can play practically flat for almost 10 octaves, it is also fact that the boundaries of most music occur will within the range of a properly working 3a. The AR9 was designed to be accommodating in a variety home listening environments. It was and is, by comparison to most full range speakers, automatically flat and ready, out of the box, to provide an optimum full range stereo image with very little fiddling and futzing around if installed within simple and practicable guidelines. The AR9 appears to be AR’s first great imaging loudspeaker. Now days legend says the Classic and ADD domes could not image well and were weak, in near field listening comparisons to more modern speakers, and for this reason AR moved on with a tour de force system that still impresses. Legend is wrong. In working with my AR5s and 3as I have discovered these old speakers can image very well in the near field if they are adequately restored to have proper output on all drivers and the rear gain controls have sufficiently fine granular adjustment to allow exact balance between left/right mid to mid and tweeter to tweeter. The pots are functionally another set of balance controls that must be accounted for to achieve good imaging with the Classic ARs. It would be a lot easier if there were no controls, as later happened, but these variable controls were a great idea before equalizers. For imaging they are a nuisance but the imaging capabilities of classics are real and they can be astonishing with their very wide dispersion. Adams

OK Bluelick I really thought an AR2ax expert would have responded before now. I had a pair of late model non euro 2axs several years ago, so I will try to offer some assistance. What little you are showing in photos looks normal. The woofer seal looks worn out but that is not the source of your problem IMO. Do you have photos of the insides before you touched the crossover and the pots? If so post those along with current photos of the insides and include full front images with grills off so we can see which tweeters you have. Were all the drivers operating before you cleaned the pots? Are all of the drivers working now that the pots have been replaced. What you are calling mid bass should be coming from the woofer but a dead mid will make the speaker sound dull and may be what you are calling muddy. Assuming the muddiness to which you refer is identical in both speakers, what you are hearing is not related to the woofer gaskets and is more likely to be the way they were wired when you reinstalled the pots or the new caps. If the muddiness is in one speaker you may a malfunctioning driver. If you swap the speaker positions and the problem is in the same channel you have an amp issue but: I am assuming you have another pair of properly functioning speakers along with a properly functioning amp that you are using as a reference for the muddiness. Post photos and anything else you feel is relevant. Someone will show up eventually with some decent help. Adams

It all looks normal. The crossover is unmolested so your description makes me think the pots are really shot. You should open the pots for examination. Adams

I will try to slip in a question in hopes it will be noticed before the the next wave of posts pushes mine out of sight. I remember when you posted this and waited to hear your listening impressions. They are obviously built on the idea of actively adding reflected sound as part of the listening experience. Have you powered them up or is this strictly a reverse assembly project?

If you are referring to this area of the midrange dome, that is normal. RE: woofer: That appears to be a cloth surround woofer. If the woofers are identical you have scored a real prize. Post full front photos with grills off I am sure you will get more help.

Looked what way? The mid range is usually among the least of your problems in an unrestored AR3a that is showing signs of age but not abuse. You could supply more photos and if you have not already done so, download the restoration guide. Adams

This post is about a tweak that will work for any Classic AR with pots and not about the mod configurations that dominate this thread. I forgot to mention one big impediment, IMO, to making a properly working AR3a or AR5 produce a good image. The tweeter and especially the mid output must be virtually identical across the stereo pair. There is so much variation in pots that you cannot do this visually, it must be done by ear and it is not easy with one person doing everything. I only noticed this recently when I made a change in the Satstack that produced a discernible leap in its imaging and which materially separated it from the AR5. The Stack was suddenly razor sharp by comparison and I was not happy that the 5s were a little off balance. The solution was to adjust the mid controls until the drivers produced the same output level. Until recently I thought “close” was good enough but it is necessary, for imaging purposes, to dial them in exactly. I am speculating here but I suspect the dome mid control variation may be a big reason why the 2ax has a better imaging rep than the classic domes. The first 5.5 octaves of music are covered by the 2ax woofer whereas the domed systems barely cover 4 octaves in the woofer before crossing to the mid which may or may not be set correctly according to pot condition and listener care. Conclusion: Classic dome ARs are fit to excel at imaging but they require more attention because of pots or even Lpads. Adams

It is bewitching but if you have a good reference recording for imaging you will know which is best. What I like about this approach is the level to which the speakers can be tailored to the listening environment rather than the reverse.

IIRC, According to Allison and Toole reflections are ok as long as they don't cancel or reinforce. In general most of the concern should be in the area below 400hz which is why it is important to get the big drivers in the domed ARs away from boundaries or at least not have them squarely placed against a wall or near the floor. This for imaging mind you not bass. The area of radiated sound from an AR domed mid is impressive and easily matches a multiple small satellite array positioned to achieve flat off axis response. This brings up why the old suspended domed tweeters are so important near the crossover point. They maintain the off axis power of the mid into the last audible octave. 20khz in music is BS . 20k only matters if you are trying to win a hearing contest or stay alive in the wild. As for speakers way out in the living space, away from reflective surfaces, it seems to be a small scale version of curved line arrays in massive arenas where reflections are ignored and the only thing that matters is directing beams of sound into an audience from the front to as far back as necessary. The downside of using a single pair of small speakers for stereo sound is the tiny sweet spot.......if you move off axis both the sound field and the image collapses. The upside is there are many small modern speakers that can image well.

The Bose cubes could probably be made to work and I am sure you can make this work with the cubes. But, you could just move your rear facing Infinity closer to the wall, which may be what you were saying, and experiment until you like what you hear. Are you using music or test tones to evaluate your success? Regarding Classic ARs. I have been listening to AR5s and my stack most of this afternoon. I can verify that a properly working AR5 with rebuilt tweeters sitting away from the wall can image very well. I used to accept what others have said about the less than stellar imaging capabilities of the classic dome ARs but no more. The flaw in all this IMO is when imaging came into vogue with high dynamic range recordings most classic AR tweeters had deteriorated putting them at a disadvantage. Another problem is classic ARs are almost always near or against a wall to preserve the bass performance. If you pull them away from the wall you get bass roll off but the image improves dramatically. This would be where your well set up sub woofer comes in handy.

Are the rear speakers above really 6db less efficient or is it the placement in the rear with their sound completely diffuse and off axis that causes them to sound 6db down from the front drivers at the listening position? You got a good result with your Infinity stack with which you could try greater distance from the wall or angle it to create greater diffusion before the first reflection. My 3 unit stack has always had two forward facing and a third facing off axis in some fashion and it seems to work. Not saying they must be identical but I would say they must cover the same sonic range and unless you are prepared and inclined to engineer a solution with disparate parts I would think the path to success would be shortened by using identical parts.

And the result is?

I only have one input so DAC or headphone amp was my initial thought. The problem I found was no LR balance control on any headphone amp or DAC/Preamp I could find below $3000. LR balance below $2000 can however be found in Stereo Preamp/DAC form. The new DACs do have higher bit rates but if all you need is a stereo preamp some of the "old" HT units appear hard to beat and many have good DACs built in ahead of the preamp.

I’ve never seen this mentioned here on any forum. This is for anyone looking for a good quality stereo pre-amp. While seeking a substitute for an ailing preamp recently, I accidentally stumbled upon an inexpensive source for quality preamps. It turns out many not very old, high end, but obsolescent HT receivers have fabulous stereo preamp sections hidden inside. Just make sure the unit has pre outs for the front speakers and a bypass or direct mode to exclude the HT processor from the signal path. They can be had surprisingly cheap. They are heavy and shipping cost can be high but the purchase price can be surprisingly low for a correctly functioning unit. This includes high end models from pro logic days. JIC I am not the last one to know this. Adams

I didn’t care about imaging beyond channel balance and phase until about 3 years ago when my listening distance was severely constrained by my desire to stay married. As a result, I started noticing nuance that can only heard in a sweet spot, which can be a several foot section of perpendicular center line between the stereo pair or just a small spot depending on how beamy the speakers are. Anyway, I use orchestral recordings to gauge speaker image quality because of this diagram below, which you probably already know about. All modern orchestras setup in the depicted pattern or a close variation. If you use a quality orchestra recording of a full-scale piece you can follow the music across the orchestra from side to side and front to back. When everything is dialed in well enough in your system the aural image fits the visual image you see above. A good recording of “A Young Persons Guide to the Orchestra by Benjamin Britten” is excellent for this purpose. EDIT: Another is Rite of Spring. You'll need some dynamic range for both to hear the very soft passages on a modern recording.

Especially true with acoustic instruments recorded before live audiences or in large venues. Forgot to mention I used orchestral music to work out the satellite placement. I use pop/rock to set up the bass and mostly orchestral to gauge the image. The studio recordings of pop/rock seem to always benefit as a result.

This is the configuration I have used for over a year. Over the last two days I have pointed the top speaker pair in 3 other directions. The arrangement that works best is to turn the top speaker 60 degrees toward the wall behind it which, from the listening position, looks as seen below. The sound is more expansive but the image is clearer and it was already good. I have to admit PeteB encouraged me to try this pointing at the wall several months ago but I was tired of fiddling and had already gotten a good result but this is better. I probably would not have bothered if you had not stacked your satellites.

W10 you can use the snip tool to save as a small file and copy/paste into CSP. For example: the image below is from a photo of a whole 3a that is 11.3 MB natively but the snipped enlargement of the badge section is only 412kb. If the snip is not too large you can copy and paste directly into CSP without first saving as a snipped jpeg

Have you checked the file sizes. Are you using W10 or AppleOS? Newer phones take GB sized images unless you reduce the image quality setting.

The ability to economically experiment with speaker placement in such a modular way has only happened in the last few years. Ironically, AR was on the path with the 3t below but, without practical, affordable, electronics to crossover and biamp there was no path to wide market acceptance. What you are doing looks DIY and belies what I know to be true, the sound can be superb. I will try the rear facing ambience trick today and see what changes.

I too thought the same thing when the drivers were all aligned in the same direction. The sound can be made more diffuse and pleasing with a small offset from centerline. The new JBL Pro LSR 305s and 306s look good as single units for this type of application. According to their boilerplate they are designed to have a wide sound field, internally powered and biamped and designed for 80-100hz sub woofer crossover. The price seems right for sure.