Aadams

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.

The AR5a Improved. Must be bi-amped with external crossover.

I find myself with a lot of listening time available and have devoted a good bit to these refurbed AR5s. I have had my 5s for five years and as recently as 3 months ago viewed them as a less capable AR3a for the chamber music and acoustic jazz /pop/folk crowd. My current opinion is AR probably never made a system that sounded better in the voice band and above, including the AR9. This is just my opinion, but it also means there are not many speakers equal to or better than an AR5 which I would now put above a 3a for quality of sound in the low mid-range, where most musical sounds originate. Adams

IS it practical to a adapt a 3a mid to 8ohm use in an AR 5?

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?/profile/179217-chris1this1/ Log in to the forum, click on the link and send a message

Message Chris1this1 .

The tweeters can be rebuilt and probably should be even if they appear to be working.............if you want similar to new performance. To my knowledge no one is rebuilding AR dome midranges but they don't degrade over time as the tweeters do. If the three orange dots around your tweeter domes are crusty, crumbly, stiff or missing your tweeters are ailing. The orange dots should be soft and pliable. An alternative is to use HI VI tweeters. Everything I have told you can be researched on this forum. Adams

If you feel competent the next easiest thing to do is to send the amp output directly to the mid driver terminals. If it is not a front wired mid you will need to remove the driver. IMO If you are sketchy on how to accomplish any of what I have suggested without damaging your electronics then don't do it and instead seek competent help. Adams

If you are talking about a model NCC-1701 audio holodeck well, of course. Back to this thread , what would you do while you are awaiting delivery?

This thread is about recreating the "AR sound". This is a post is about the evolution of “AR sound”. The text below was taken from a very informative thread in Mods and Tweaks regarding AR4x crossover mods. The thread originated in the AR forum but was moved to mods and tweaks years ago, for obvious reasons, but this piece of that thread belongs in the AR forum. The poster was “Speaker Dave”, a former Snell designer. “We can only speculate while looking at the system several decades later. We do know that the AR design preference at the time was to optimize the individual driver and crossover bandpasses in a reverberent chamber. This would emphasize the power response of each driver while downplaying the axial response. When looking at the woofer and its crossover, and the tweeter and its crossover, in a reverb room, the primary difference would be the woofer's response. As any woofer rolls off considerably off axis, it would effectively have a lower crossover point in a reverb room. This would downplay the overlap issues and might suggest a larger capacitor value as optimum. AR also preferred a balance that followed measurements of concert halls (room R converted to a response curve). This, along with optimizing woofers to be flattest in 2 pi (half space), is the reason why every early generation product seems to have a family curve that crowns at mid frequencies when the system is measured in a free field. The 2pi-4pi difference gives an uphill trend in the woofer range and the down-tilt in the treble matches the concert hall trend. None of these are matters of "right philosophy, wrong philosophy", but are typical af a general industry-wide evolution in design approach over the years. We certainly saw the same thing within AR: the AR 9 is designed to a flatter free field response and has key features such as the acoustic blanket, that only impact the direct response. Its also worthwile pointing out the contribution of test equipment over the years. Much of the Linkwitz/Reilly approach to crossover design, which is the basis of my discussion of "adding an order to get the phase more in line" would have been, as a practical matter, impossible in the 60's. The essential component of measuring phase response couldn't be done on a frequency sweep basis. The first tool for doing that that I recall was the B&K phase meter of about 1980. It still didn't allow removal of excess phase, the 1 or 2 meters of air path delay, so it wasn't a great help. (My rusty recollection.) It really took MLSSA, TEF and FFT methods to give easily made phase curves. I don't think capacitor cost was a factor. But I'm sure that a more complex crossover, certainly a third order network, would have been rejected for reasons of cost. This is again typical of the times. JBL made a lot of money selling L100's with 2 caps and 2 L-Pads, nothing else. An inductor on the woofer was already an extravegence on AR's part, in a budget system.” Regards, David

If you have a set of properly working AR5s and a pair of any AR12 inch 3way , ADD through TSW, Edit (or especially an Original Large Advent) you have an opportunity to inexpensively create a more capable speaker by combining the two systems into a 4 way configuration crossed over at 200hz. You will get the benefit of the 12 inch woofer avoiding the human voice range, with almost all voice originating in the 10 inch AR5 woofer before it crosses over to the wide dispersion mid at 600hz. It has the clarity of an AR9 with the dispersion of a 3a and its laid-back sound but the lighter touch of the AR5 10inch in the voice band. I wish I could say I had planned this as part of a genius insight, but it was done on a whim. Adams

SatStacks on AR5s with 58s as subs . Both systems are now on a switch. It takes about 10 seconds to change the amp settings to compensate for sensitivity. My Opinion is unchanged They sound so similar that if I avoid looking at a particular switch I cannot tell which system I am hearing from the listening position.

At my house, the AR5 and AR3a sound virtually identical in their common range. When I started this project over a year ago I was trying to match or exceed the sound of an AR58s. Over the past two days I have been directly comparing the sound of the Sat Stack with AR5s in a four-way bi amped configuration. The 4 way config uses the AR5 10” woofer as a low mid driver between 200 and 600Hz. Everything below 200hz is carried by the 58s woofer. The setup is as follows: AR5s are fully functional with new rebuilt tweeters. The late style woofers have resistors installed to bring sensitivity in line with the earlier woofer…. Graphic equalizer is bypassed, Hi control is full and mid control is half. Sat Stacks, consisting of 6 BA65 speakers……..12 drivers in all, as pictured previously, are on the graphic equalizer set flat except at 1000hz which is 3db down. The Sat Stacks are sitting directly atop the AR5s which are on a pedestal 12” above the floor. The recordings are all very familiar, to me, classical and two specific pop vocals that have sections of lyrics difficult to render. Conclusion: The sound is virtually identical if not on a direct AB switch. This means if you were to walk in the room being acquainted with the sound but not knowing which was playing it would be a 50/50guess. I have demonstrated, to my satisfaction at least, the expansive sound of the classic AR domes can be duplicated with an inexpensive array of more modern speakers. The stacks will remain on the AR5s indefinitely. And, I am very glad I did not sell my AR5s. One surprise: The AR5 vocal performance is the equal of the Sat stack. The AR5s are definitely better than my 3as in this area Second surprise: The sound spread of the Classic AR domes is remarkable. They can equal the spread of twelve modern drivers. I am not talking about power handling but dispersion. I think this ability ended with the beginning of the ADD series. I know the 58s cannot create the same expanse of sound as the AR5, in the near field. Finally, there is a thread in the AR forum about getting the AR sound from modern components. I can say without reservation this is one way to achieve that.

The 4way AR5 is configured and playing, stacked on the 58s. The more you do this the easier it gets to dial in these sets of bi-amped dissimilar speakers. They are crossed over at 200hz and I think they are balanced but I will listen for at least another couple of weeks before putting the Sat Stack back on the 58s. The only ever problem with AR5s has been the disappointment of missing the lowest bass when it hits in the music because its low roll off begins around 50hz. This configuration solves that problem. You might be able to duplicate this with two powered subs and a natural low roll off but it is easier to take active control and impose a high and low pass at a point where both drivers are working comfortably and more than an octave away from a built in crossover point. The AR5 tweeters have been sent for rebuild. Although both of them worked it became obvious they were lacking in comparison to the Sat stack tweeters. I will report further on the 4 way AR5s when I get the tweeters reinstalled. Adams

This is still the on topic. I have been looking at the specs for small speakers. Almost all are bass reflex and many tout specs that challenge credulity. For instance, I came across this speaker from Human; The stated freq parameters are -/+ 2db from 38hz to 26khz which are better than the original Advent and is believable down to 100hz or so. I have never heard any 2way 6 inch speaker that could challenge an OLA below 100hz. This is AR 3 series territory. What should I believe. On paper, this Human model, can outperform an AR3a. Questions: Is this possible with today’s state of the speaker art? If possible then is it plausible for $425? Adams

If you have read earlier posts in this thread, you know I felt there was strong similarity in sound to the 9 and 3a, long before I moved the Sat stacks into the same room. I also previously evaluated the BA/58 against the standard 58s which showed great dissimilarity in LMR sound quality. Now that they are all together, I have spent hours over the previous 2 days balancing systems and listening to evaluate the difference in sound between the 3a, 9 and the Hybrid 9 to determine if the difference was sufficient to make me leave the Hybrid9 in place, which was not the original plan. To review, the Hybrid9 configuration is one DSP amp to the stacks and one DSP amp to AR9s with each amp configured as either high or low pass at 400hz. To listen to the standard AR9 I must simply reprogram its amp to full range mode, but I cannot directly AB the 9 against the Hybrid as I can the 3a. Following are the distilled impressions of all that I have heard using repeated listening of a small range of recordings with which I am very familiar. The Hybrid9 has an expansive sound more like a 3a than a 9. All three speaker systems sound so similar that if you were to enter the listening area from the rear, almost 30ft away, without knowing which was playing, you could not clearly distinguish which without approaching within 6ft. In absolute terms, according to taste, the Hybrid9 may sound a little better than the standard 9 but the improvement over the 9 is subjectively marginal and nothing in proportion to the vast improvement that can be had with any AR12” 3way except the AR3a or LST, IMO. I will soon begin moving the electronics and wiring back to the 58s but just before I replace the Sat stacks I think I will try out the sound of a 4way AR5. Adams

The BA/58 stack has been temporarily deactivated. The stack and electronics are now part of a new incarnation---------a BA/9 stack. I know I said I would use a 3a but I realized it was logistically even easier to use the 9s and I learned something about using AR 4ways in the process. First, if you do this with an AR 4 way you can cross at 100hz or 400hz but not at 200hz. 200hz seems perfect for a 3 way AR but the 4way doesn’t sound right because, as AR says in the AR9 manual, you will get some unpredictable effects. AR foresaw that idiots like me might use an external crossover so, way back in 1979 they recommended 400hz for a woofer crossover point and partially explained why. You could also cross at 100hz but that is a waste of an AR9. In the end, crossing at 400hz means you are effectively still running a 4 way system. How does it sound? I tried a couple of configurations you can see in the photos. The listening position is 15ft away. I could stand and move around with no dips or peaks apparent while listening to either large scale classical or pop vocals. The vocals were solo recordings of male and female voices that I heard many times before on this satellite stack. Does it sound like a 3a? Close enough to where I could forget which speakers I had switched after a few minutes. The amount of energy a 3a can distribute is astonishing. Six drivers in this stack could not quite match its sound signature but sitting at 15ft listening, it is very hard to tell the difference after the switch is made. This approach works in large and small spaces.

And finally, from The Man himself, Mr Tim Holl, on why 200hz was the target. Adams