Aadams

I am considering the small ADS dual dome 3 ways from the late 70s to the 90s with 8 inch or smaller woofer. Anything like a 710 or 810. My question is what is the status of the ADS parts market ? Is the availability as good as AR or is it more like a needle in a haystack. I have almost zero ADS knowledge beyond brand awareness and a connection with Braun. Adams

Assuming they are operating correctly, the woofer in both speakers is carrying all but the last half octave of music. The tweeters are playing 8 notes plus important atmospherics, basically, and it may be that the 8" woofer of the Scott is better than the 10 "Dynaco over those 7.5 octaves. I would think the 8" would be a little less beamy also. And the last six inches of sound travel between your ears is most important and only known by you. Adams

I know nothing about Scott speakers except what is on the internet. The A25 also crosses over at around the same frequency.

I thought I recognized your handle from the past which meant you probably had other speakers. I looked and found you had A25s at one time and guessed you still had them. Adams

Have you tried connecting your A25s and placing them next to or on top of the Scott's to compare? You need a reference IMO. Ears are fickle and duplicitous. Adams

DCM Time Window vs AR5 Short version: As setup in this configuration, the Time Window 1a and AR 5 are indistinguishable after switching. My Time Windows sound the best I have ever heard them. Longer Version Test setup: Electronics feeding both systems are identical including equalizer settings The bass response of both systems is identical below 200hz because they are bi-amped thus, this comparison is of performance above 200hz. Drivers for both systems are set at listening height with cabinets almost touching. The DCMs have no attenuators. The AR attenuators are set to tweeter max and mid about 75%. AR tweeters are Chris rebuilds. Both systems were volume and frequency-balance equalized to a third system that served as a reference for my ears. (Note the AR 5s had been equalized previously but I reset them for this test. If the DCMs could not have been closely matched in frequency balance at this point without equalizer adjustments, I would have stopped the test. Listening Listened to several hours of pop and jazz voice recordings. At times the intervals were long enough for me to forget which speaker I was hearing. Occasionally I would repeat a recording and push the switch button to listen and compare on the other speaker pair. There is no practical difference in the sound of these speakers above 200hz. If you like the expansive sound of the AR Classic 3 way domes the Time Windows are very similar in sound. Caveats: This test was conducted without the need to optimize speaker placement for bass reproduction because each speaker system was used as a “top” for a separate bass system. IMO -The Time Window 1a, standing alone, has bass extension similar to an AR 8 inch, that is IMO. DCM claims for bass were more substantial but were never stated, for example, as a -3db down point. Crossover frequency was never published but must be well above 1khz. Time Windows, with no attenuation, have a bright sound much like an AR Classic with controls set to max output. You will almost certainly need an equalizer. I know from experience, pre-amp tone controls are inadequate to tame them.

This is an old thread. 6 years ago, the OP said he would get back to us with his thoughts on the Time Window vs AR3a. He has yet to get back with the answer. Time passed and the thread was forgotten but I rediscovered it recently and decided to attempt a continuation. My Time Windows, which I purchased new, have been returned to service reconnected on a switch with AR5s sitting adjacent within 6 inches. Each Time Window 1a contains two 6 inch cones and two 1” dome tweeters in a transmission line (bass reflex) design arranged much like an Allison 1. In their instruction sheet, DCM talks about the great bass response but I don’t think these speakers will strongly respond below 60hz. The piston area of two sixes is barely larger than a single 8" woofer. Their sound however is expansive, like a TOTL classic AR, and now that I have my AR5s dialed in I will compare the two systems above 200hz, with bass for both being handled by an AR 12 inch. The specifications below are from the factory instruction sheet. For such an expensive speaker in the mid-80s, the specs are vague in the areas of frequency response, dispersion and crossover frequency…nothing like what AR supplied in the classic years. DCM Time Window 1A Specifications Weight 32 lbs Dimensions 36 H x 14.75 W x 11.75 D inches Power Req 10 Watts recommended minimum per channel 50 watts RMS continuous pink noise max 20hz-20khz Sensitivity 89db/watt one meter on axis Impedance 5 ohms minimum 6-8 ohms nominal Frequency Range 25hz- 18khz Dispersion 180 degrees horizontal 60 degrees vertical

Ligs What is the approx. model year for those JBLs 36ii and are they ported? I found them but no dates. That six inch speaker will strain down low IMO. Was it playing full range or do you have the low range constrained as with the JBL 10"? Otherwise I am not surprised the 10" sounds more relaxed at higher sound levels. Adams

Point taken. I am making a statement about the cost to cover the bottom bottom 2 1/2 octaves comparable to an AR9. Just pointing out good subs that are highly adaptable for home music applications are uncommon and expensive. They are much more expensive than using a an AR 12inch or an OLA as a passive sub-woofer for satellites. Of the three elements required for the passive solution only the AR 12" would not meet the criterion but taken together the bass system would be 66% new.

I just finished doing another survey of the sub-woofer landscape, both powered and passive, for home music applications. Not much has changed in the last couple of years Criteria for selection are 1 Essentially flat between 32hz and 220hz 2. low pass variable from 30 to 200hz 3. Selectable between 12 and 24db/octave slope 4. XLR, high level, and RCA connections preferable. Here are some random listed conclusions. Minimum price for above criteria appears to be $1500/pair for factory modified Hsu Mk2 subs. The modification would extend the low pass from the standard 90hz to up 200hz. The variable crossover range would be 30-200hz. Mod is $50 per unit with 24db/octave slope only. SVS 1000 and 2000 hit the mark except they are strictly 12db/octave. New passive subs for home audio do not appear to be available except in kit form and even then, there are very few choices. Almost all powered subs are optimized for HT use. On paper most do not appear to offer sufficiently flexible adjustments to blend with the wide range of satellites that could be used for critical music listening. Exceptions are: SVS PCB and Ultras beginning at $2000/ pair Revel Performa beginning at $4400/ pair Conclusion: IMO the best value currently is an AR12” AS with a DSP amp and a 31 band equalizer or an Allison ESW if you can find one. Feel free to change my mind by providing new facts that I may have overlooked. Adams

I recommend you do a swap of the drivers in question. Just move each to the other box and see if the problem moves. If it doesn't move the problem is not in the speaker driver. JMO. Adams

Does the JBL127h1 have a cut freq or is it allowed to roll off below a 100Hz? Aadams

Thanks for the page, without which I am not sure I could have decoded the above statement. What I think you are saying is the 1259s are flat to 32hz and the HSU goes below that. At first I thought you were saying the JBL 10" was flat to 32. Do you have a shelf on the JBLs or do they just roll off to the 1259s? The subs you have are no longer available except used and finding matched, used pairs is near impossible and few sellers will ship.

Are you using two of these with the NHTs?

Good article. Moran’s description of the symphonic bass drum hit exactly describes what I hear easily on my AR9s and only slightly on my other systems. I believe that separate powered sub woofers can produce bass far lower than I practically need for music. The problem with powered subwoofers for me has been my inability to make them integrate pleasingly for music playback in stereo. I think I could have eventually found a solution for my hybrid system by shopping in the $1000/unit range but by then I had stumbled upon a passive solution in the AR58 cabinets. If I ever do move to powered subs I will still use a DSP amp to set the high pass frequency and bypass the subwoofer crossover. Luckily, I won’t have a problem so long as I don’t outlive my speakers. For the foreseeable future I can still find plenty of AR 12” to serve as passive units in the event I lose mine. Still, it would be nice to experiment with a couple of powered subs but I am already out of space for systems and the cost for new, just to experiment, is just not reasonable IMO. I don't have family that is remotely interested in owning any of this stuff, if given to them. I am in a bind until I rationalize my way out. Was that the entire article? It had an abrupt ending. Adams

If you have read previous posts you know I did a same room comparison and established that the Sat Stack compares well against the my 9s and 3as. Over the last 2 months I have tried to volume equalize the 9s, 5a and the Sat Stack using the 9s as the volume level base line. The basic procedure uses adjacent listening rooms as follows. Music source and equalizer settings are identical for all systems AR5 Tweeter control max AR5 Mid control is about 75% max AR9 controls are Zeroed Sat Stack has no attenuators but is set down 3db at 1000hz 12db per octave slope on an in line equalizer Listening distance for all systems is about 8 ft Volume level is low enough to not be easily heard from the adjacent room This may seem klugey but I have no help in doing this. 1. Set the volume level for the AR9s at 8ft 2. Set the volume for either of the other two systems until, when walking from one room to the other there is no apparent volume drop Results: On instrumental music of any kind that I have tried there is no difference that I can discern except for the occasional obvious low bass on the AR 9s. Playing song after song of mostly non-classical solo voice did reveal differences but I don’t know how to describe them. All three systems sound almost identical. If the test were blind I don’t know if I could reliably identify them when switched but in the absence of a helper, the best I can do is say the Sat Stack with its more modern drivers seems to have an edge over the others on recordings of solo voice. Bottom line. If I lost my ARs I could get back to an AR sound eventually using more modern equipment though I don’t know what I would use for a woofer. Adams

I thought someone more expert would have answered by now. That looks like a whizzer cone ... One voice coil with two cones. The small cone helps extend the high range of the larger speaker. I always, perhaps incorrectly, associated whizzer cones with radios and cheap utility speakers. IMO that is not a correct replacement even if it will fit but by now you should already know the answer. How does it sound? Adams

I read the articles about the speakers with on board DSPs. IMO it doesn't make sense from a hobbyists standpoint because the DSP can't be reprogrammed but it is an advantage for the consumer because the DSP is customized to operate with a single amp per stereo side. DSPs outboard with respect to the speaker, would be perfect for a hobbyist wanting to select and test a variety of drivers in combination. Passive speakers in combo with outboard DSPs is a more flexible arrangement but requires an amp per pass band on each channel. I think the line array systems setup on big music venue sound stages are done this way. At home it would not be any different than bi-amping, tri-amping or even quad- amping a stereo pair of speakers but the crossover would be entirely outboard and programmable. Speaker system manufacturers could bypass or eliminate passive crossovers and specify the recommended crossover settings to be set in an outboard DSP crossover. Edit: Just found a nerd thread from 2017 about this very topic. https://audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/crossover-less-passive-speakers.1951/ Adams

I do not have the knowledge to create a handmade custom crossover. The only way I would know how to do it is with a DSP. A stereo power amp with an integrated DSP would be most convenient but you would need an amp for each pass band. For a 3way speaker you would need 3 amps. The only ones I know about are the Crowns which are programmed to use Linkwitz Reilly 24db octave. I haven't seen any outboard DSPs that are not made for powered speakers and even then more for surround sound use. I notice MiniDSP has a 2x8 outboard processor specifically for stereo inputs but still need a power amp for each pass band. 3 way six channels 4 way 8 channels. Adams

Maybe I am missing the point here and a bit naive but couldn't you use a DSP amp to power and crossover these speakers and dispense with the the hand-made crossover. There may be disadvantages I don't see but one advantage would be you could set the hi/lo pass frequency by pushing a button. Adams

One thing for sure you have been thorough. I am not the expert here but I can say with comfort it won't hurt anything to replace the Spragues.. What caught my attention was the near identical variance of the 24 uf caps and they were Compulytics. I think the tolerance is 10% and those appear to be well out of spec. EDIT: You said Royalytic in your post and I have been thinking Compulytic because that is what I saw in one of the images. I think Compulytic and Royalytic were different lines. Carl was referring to Sprague Compulytics. Adams

You may have seen this before but you might want to review this great legacy thread from the very experienced Carlspeak. I have been reading this stuff for years now and have come to believe if you don't have the right equipment and know how to use it and understand the equations, measuring capacitors is mostly just farting around. Summation is Carl almost never saw a Compulytic out of spec. What are the odds that you have two of the same value measuring almost identically out of range? Adams

This makes sense. A properly working AR12 with its 400hz crossover should sound very similar to an AR5 and better if the AR5 had a degraded tweeter. Actually, except for bass extension, it may have been the best sounding of the ADD series. AR never had a lower crossover in any three way until the Connoisseur series.

I can't find where you told us the crossover frequency.

Is this the same woofer below? This is an LSR 6332.