AR 3 frequency response graphics

[Sonnar]

Many people knows AR 3a, and when they listen to AR 3 they says " midranges are gone ". 

Wrong. 

The real AR 3 frequency response is very different from 3a , quite opposite . Midrange is very quiet , understated , while AR 3a's midranges are very strong : however , while AR 3a's tweeter has a gentle roll-off , AR 3's tweeter has a rising response , exceptional sparkling highs never harsh, quite electrostatic . 

 

I think original Villchur 's AR are very different from AR of Teledyne era. 

Best wishes 

Adriano

[frankmarsi]

Hello Sonnar, your post will certainly inspire members to come forth. I myself never heard an AR speaker described like that.

 

[genek]

That hurt my eyes. Try these.

[ligs]

Genek Thanks,  now the pages  can be enlarged for viewing. Since I have dabbled  a little in speaker DIY. The modern(but debatable)thinking has been flat overall response. However, AR speakers sound good  using drivers which have smooth response individually(and wide dispersion) , in spite of the interference between drivers. Would wide dispersion unavoidably result in interference?

 

George

[genek]

I hope so. When I'm playing my music I don't want to be able to pick out each individual driver in my speakers.

[Aadams]

22 hours ago, Sonnar said:

I think original Villchur 's AR are very different from AR of Teledyne era. 

I thought I remembered reading about this topic in an old thread.  I found it in an @tysontom post about 3/4 of the way down. 

Here is part of the post

“I really don't have a preference. I have such great respect for both speakers that I enjoy listening to either system. Clearly, the AR-3a was a improvement over the AR-3 in several respects, such as off-axis response and power-handling. The AR-3, however, received higher critical acclaim when it was introduced, and it set the standard of performance, but it came out (technically) nine years prior to the AR-3a. It has become a great classic in every since of the word. The AR-3a certainly improved upon the same formula that made the AR-3 such a good speaker, but the refinements were quite subtle. For example, there are no pronounced differences in the measured response of the two speakers -- there are more similarities than differences. I heard a "new" AR-3 and a "new" AR-3a compared in the AR Music Room in 1967, and the "new" speakers sounded much more alike than have been described by some people on these pages.”

[fedeleluigi]

@AadamsThank you  for the link!

 Tom Tyson also explained the reasons for the sonic differences in the second part of his post (I highlighted it in red). I agree with him.

On 8/25/2005 at 4:05 AM, tysontom said:

I really don't have a preference. I have such great respect for both speakers that I enjoy listening to either system. Clearly, the AR-3a was a improvement over the AR-3 in several respects, such as off-axis response and power-handling. The AR-3, however, received higher critical acclaim when it was introduced, and it set the standard of performance, but it came out (technically) nine years prior to the AR-3a. It has become a great classic in every since of the word. The AR-3a certainly improved upon the same formula that made the AR-3 such a good speaker, but the refinements were quite subtle. For example, there are no pronounced differences in the measured response of the two speakers -- there are more similarities than differences. I heard a "new" AR-3 and a "new" AR-3a compared in the AR Music Room in 1967, and the "new" speakers sounded much more alike than have been described by some people on these pages.

The biggest problem I see is that it is difficult to find AR-3s today, after so many years, that perform as they did when new. This is also applies to the AR-3a's 3/4-inch tweeter, as well. The glues become brittle; the foam-rubber damping rings harden; the suspensions on the tweeters change through time so that the performance of this speaker has likely deteriorated slightly through time. When AR was fabricating these tweeters, the rejection-rate on drivers was very high; today I doubt that any of them would pass with flying colors, but perhaps that is to be expected with anything that is thirty- or forty-years old.

I wanted to share the Berkovitz study on the piano-vs.-AR-3 because it showed that the AR-3 was (once again) capable of very accurate replication of the signal source. I have always felt this to be the real definition of "high fidelity." It is true that it could not duplicate the radpat of a piano -- no speaker could -- but the AR-3 was clearly able to accurately reproduce the electrical signal it received, as graphically shown in the oscilloscope images. This was especially noteworthy in that the test was originally performed to determine the output requirements of an amplifier to reproduce "live" levels of a piano using a typical, low-efficiency speaker (without regard to the speaker model), and the accuracy results were strictly coincidental to the power-requirement studies.

--Tom Tyson

 

 

 

Although many people believe that the AR-3a project is essentially the work of Allison and McShane, personally, I have always believed that Vilchur certainly and actively participated in that project that probably began immediately after the introduction of the AR-3 in 1958. Taking into account Villchur's life after the sale of Acoustic Reseach to Teledyne (in 1967, a few months before AR-3a was introduced) I can't believe that in the years before the sale of his company Villchur only dealt with other issues of the company except speaker design. So, personally, I think there was no discontinuity with Villchur's "sound philosophy" with the introduction of AR-3a and the sound differences that today emerge when comparing  AR-3 to AR-3a essentially depend on their different aging.

[Sonnar]

No, AR 3 sounds more transparent and sparkling, curves are very different in mid-high region. 

[fedeleluigi]

On 11/30/2020 at 7:58 PM, Sonnar said:

No, AR 3 sounds more transparent and sparkling, curves are very different in mid-high region. 

 

Adriano,

No doubt that the charts you posted show two very different curves. But they were acquired in different situations and ways and for this reason they are not comparable each other otherwise you compare apples with oranges.

 

 

[frankmarsi]

"exceptional sparkling highs never harsh, quite electrostatic"    For me and probably the masses,  AR's are anything but that although I agree about not being 'harsh' though certainly not "electrostatic" like "sparkling highs",  though maybe on a good day.

Also, when folks talk about their speakers, I believe it to be helpful to also describe the rest of their set-up as a point of reference. Where on the roster of sound quality does the whole set-up sit? Is it a $1000. or $3,000. amplifier or pre-amp. Was the personal opinion based on a $100. phono cartridge or a $3,000. cartridge. Was the turntable very old with poor resolution or one with an precision high quality tonearm that was properly set-up. Was the CD player a $200. unit or a $2,000. player? Are there better cables and interconnects or the really cheap ones that come with the unit or of truly high-quality?  All these items do make a huge difference. Also of major importance is the proper attention made in terms of room-placement. 

Mind you, I'm not professing that any one here must spend oodles of money on such stuff as is done in the world of 'high-end', most here sadly do not but, cables and components must be at least of a better quality standard before any unqualified opinions can be taken as absolute truth as opinions are biased and not objective. This information as it's always helpful for members to describe in text or with fotos showing what their set-ups are composed of to be able to know what level of sound quality described. Otherwise it's a bunch of bunk.

Being a member here for almost 17 years the consensus seems to be many of the imperative and necessary steps are generally not taken as many simply throw speakers into a room and are content with that. 

As an owner and ardent fan of AR speakers for 50 years I have always been concerned with taking the requisite steps to make my system sound as good as it can. For me, all of the inputs, cables etc. I use add up to making my system be all it is capable of being. Many on the internet speak with such  exaggerated statements made about their sound-quality until you become aware of the rest of the set-up and then you realize they're talking through their hats and actually have no real premise of which to speak. This is obvious why the majority do not post fotos of their set-ups. Some actually believe if they have AR speakers then their set-up must sound good and are content with that. Sadly, that is not the way to better listening and surprisingly still exists long after hi-fi became a worthy and fun experience years ago. Simply put, the more effort, expense and self-learning one puts into their system the better it will sound. Almost anything flies on the internet but, for maximum pleasure one must arm themselves with knowledge of the field of high-fidelity before they can accurately speak about 'sound-quality'. 

[Sonnar]

6 hours ago, fedeleluigi said:

Adriano,

No doubt that the charts you posted show two very different curves. But they were acquired in different situations and ways and for this reason they are not comparable each other otherwise you compare apples with oranges.

 

 

These measurements were made in half space , absolutely comparable. 

They shows a well known  rolloff in AR 3a's  tweeter , and, opposite, a fast rising response in AR 3's tweeter .

[Aadams]

Here is more info from 2003.  This is pasted from the attached thread above:

The AR-3: I love this speaker. I think it is the highest single technical achievement from Acoustic Research in terms of innovation and "contribution." Its accuracy and low distortion were state-of-the-art, and clearly the AR-3 was the best loudspeaker commercially available throughout the late-50s and on into the mid-1960s. It literally changed the way the industry thought about loudspeakers, and it is still considered a fine loudspeaker after almost forty-five years.

Despite its classic status, the AR-3 was certainly not perfect, and part of that imperfection came from the technical limitations and compromises that existed back in the late 1950s (and to a lesser degree today). The woofer in the AR-3 was crossed over at approximately 1000 Hz., but it was starting to get ragged off-axis by 800 Hz. or so. On axis, AR measured the low-frequency capability of the AR-3 at +/- 1.5 dB, 38-1000Hz, and 6-dB down at 30 Hz. Because of the woofer’s prodigious low-bass output, there is significant, if reduced, output down to 20 Hz. and below. The woofer gets quite "directional" at that upper frequency (in contrast, the AR-3a's 575-Hz. crossover was better, and its 1-1/2-inch midrange driver could go lower than the 2-inch AR-3 unit, and it had greater excursion capability). Nevertheless, the crossover slopes are gentle in the AR-3, so the 2-inch midrange -- with its excellent off-axis response -- is working pretty well at 1000 Hz., and overlapping the woofer's response somewhat.

The 2-inch midrange driver in the AR-3 is crossed over at 7,500 to the tweeter, but could have been operated from 1000 Hz. to 15,000 Hz. or so, if the AR-3 had been a 2-way design. The 1-3/8-inch "super tweeter," as it was known, was AR's most perfect driver at the time. It had a gently rising characteristic up through 7,000 Hz. and on out to 20,000 Hz. The 7,500 Hz. crossover was an optimum point for this tweeter. The high-frequency section of the AR-3 had a measured (anechoic) response of 1000-20,000 Hz., +/- 2dB, on axis. Measured 45-degrees off-axis, any direction, the response was -3dB at 10,000 Hz., and -8dB at 15,000 Hz. This is pretty good performance by any known standard. Incidentally, this was not a “system” response, per se, but the individual-driver measured response, measured in AR's and MIT's anechoic chambers. AR published all these curves and made these available to anyone upon request, another unique AR trait.

--Tom Tyson

[fedeleluigi]

On 12/1/2020 at 11:03 PM, Sonnar said:

These measurements were made in half space , absolutely comparable. 

As I mentioned, the graphs of the frequency response curves you posted are not comparable for several reasons.

In summary, you can correctly compare measurements of two or more speaker systems only if they are  acquired according to the same standards.  

We are sufficiently familiar with the "standards" used by AR through the AES paper  (https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=2058) from which the AR-3a graph you posted comes from but we know nothing about the "standards" adopted by High Fidelity Magazine. In the AR-3 article they just say: “The effects at 150 to 250 Hz cps are ground reflections and diffraction effects (the speaker was lying on its back, facing upwards for these measurements)”,  and  for the higher frequencies : “These measurements were made with both midrange and tweeter level controls at the indicated flat positions.

But nothing is specified about the acoustic characteristics of the chamber  in which the measurements  were made, the positioning of the microphone, the equipment used, etc.  It is not even specified whether the speaker system was flush with the floor as AR did in some of its measurements shown in the AES paper I mentioned.

In the AES paper, as regards the 2Pi measurements, AR says:  “Our main anechoic chamber has non-reflective wedges on only 5 of its interior surfaces. The sixth is smooth concrete, with an opening in its center; speakers to be tested are placed at this opening with suitable adapter baffles so that they are flush with the inside chamber wall. In this manner a 2Pi radiation angle is obtained with minimum discontinuity”.

But what is even more important is that the AR-3a frequency response graph you posted is not the correct one. In fact, it refers to the AR-3a system measured in 4Pi anechoic environment: Fig.9 in the AES paper (please see the attached graph).

In the AES paper you can read: “The picture becomes far more complex when the same system (AR-3a, Ed.) is measured in 4Pi environment. We took this AR-3a to the large walk-in anechoic chamber at Harvard Acoustics Laboratory, and repeated the measurements there.   Fig. 8 shows on-axis response of the individual speakers of the system, in the cabinet and with molding in place. Mid-range and tweeter curves are shown for both the normal and maximum level control settings. The most obvious feature of Fig. 8 is the woofer response. There is a continuous down-hill slide from about 400 Hz, at which frequency the cabinet is a reasonably effective 2Pi baffle, to about 170 Hz, and then a flat response below that frequency. At 170 Hz and below the radiation angle is 4Pi steradians and the output, quite predictably, is lower than it was into a 2Pi angle. Molding and cabinet-edge diffraction are clearly at work on the axial response curves of the mid-range unit. Fig. 9 is the on-axis system curve, with molding, level controls at maximum.”

 

[Sonnar]

Curves are identical in the bass and midbass region, same or similar woofer , they 're absolutely comparable. 

Conversely, they 're very different in midrange and highrange, different loudspeakers, different crossover.

As Tom Tyson said , the AR 3's tweeter " had a gently rising characteristic " , as everyone can see by the graphics , while AR 3a has a well-known gentle roll-off starting at 5 Khz .

I'm not saying which one sounds better , but they 're surely different speakers, different sounding.

 

 

[fedeleluigi]

On 12/10/2020 at 7:07 PM, Sonnar said:

Curves are identical in the bass and midbass region, same or similar woofer , they 're absolutely comparable. 

Conversely, they 're very different in midrange and highrange, different loudspeakers, different crossover.

As Tom Tyson said , the AR 3's tweeter " had a gently rising characteristic " , as everyone can see by the graphics , while AR 3a has a well-known gentle roll-off starting at 5 Khz .

I'm not saying which one sounds better , but they 're surely different speakers, different sounding.

 

 

Adriano, for those who know a little about acoustics, those measurements are not comparable.

AES paper AR-3a 2Pi frequency response measured on axis in AR "particular" anechoic chamber (please, see my previous post for details). 

I do hope you can appreciate the great difference between Fig.9 (4Pi anechoic response on axis) and Fig. 5 (2Pi frequency response measured in AR "particular" anechoic chamber) graphs shown in the AES paper for the same AR-3a speaker. So, as I wrote before, you cannot compare apples with oranges.

Moreover, it is not a question of whether the AR-3 is better than the AR-3a or vice versa. The problem is that what you say does not correspond to the truth. For many years, you have had the theory that the AR-3 and AR-3a were speakers conceived and designed differently and consequently their sound was very different. However you have never been able to prove this theory of yours.

Furthermore, you have never taken into account a lot of data that has been provided to you over the years. In summary:

-First of all, no company in the world would replace a best-selling loudspeaker such as AR-3 with one that is very, or even totally, different in sound. Moreover at AR they pursued the accuracy of reproduction and not a particular sound philosophy! Or, if you prefer, the sound philosophy of Villchur, Allison and many other talented people who worked at AR was exactly the same: to make a very accurate speaker!

-Second, all the reviews from that period claimed the differences in AR-3 and AR-3a sound were rather subtle and not earthshacking.

-Finally, even the testimonies of very experienced people who were able to compare them when both AR-3 and AR-3a were new, state the same thing: the sound of the two speaker systems was ultimately very similar.

 

For all these reasons,  I previously quoted an old Tom Tyson's post where he says: “The AR-3a certainly improved upon the same formula that made the AR-3 such a good speaker, but the refinements were quite subtle. For example, there are no pronounced differences in the measured response of the two speakers - there are more similarities than differences. I heard a "new" AR-3 and a "new" AR-3a compared in the AR Music Room in 1967, and the "new" speakers sounded much more alike than have been described by some people on these pages. The biggest problem I see is that it is difficult to find AR-3s today, after so many years, that perform as they did when new. This is also applies to the AR-3a's 3/4-inch tweeter, as well.”

 

You seem to want to convince yourself that your AR-3s still sound like they did when they were brand new!

Unfortunately, it is well known that the AR-3's midranges very often age poorly and badly as the whitish material around the dome unfortunately  hardens. Until it completely hardens, this causes a progressive increase in the unit resonant frequency which progressively results in a low output in the mid-range band and an increased output in the high-range band (just like when you tighten the strings of a guitar more and more: the "basses" progressively decrease and the "highs" conversely increase). That's why  "no midrange” and “sparkling highs"  as you say in the first post! That’s correct! That’s the result of AR-3 midrange aging until, ultimately, the output will be very, very low at all frequencies like some members  described in this forum.

 

 

 Reviews that compared AR-3 and AR-3a

-

 

 

-

Electronics World enterely reprinted Julian Hirsch's review.

 

 

 

[frankmarsi]

A brilliant and oh so valid post by Fedeleluigi.     

As difficult as it is to pin-point memory recall I can to a limited degree remember the times I spent in 1967-68 at the biggest store of its type on Staten Island, our first.

There I asked the nerdy guys who worked there on several occasions to A B the AR-3 and AR-3a for me. Although their store set-up and placement of the speakers wasn’t optimum, I can recall that I concentrated on the high frequencies and bass tones in my listening.

It was very difficult to ascertain any differences except the notion that AR’s documentation in every advertising piece and test-result review I read over and over while deciding which speaker to buy only indicated the AR-3a’s were improved. However, as fate would have it was not to be as I now found myself with a new uncle sam who asked me to spend some time in service to my country. The whole big deal of my dreams had to wait until I paid my debt. Though I had a new Dynaco pre-amp I built and an ST-35 tube amplifier along with my self assembled speakers waiting for me to get back to when I returned.

Back in the New York Groove:  At my then ripe old age of 20-21 (1971), the AR-3 remained at its listed price while the AR-3a came in at I recall about $25. more each and that increase X 2 for my budget was a big deal. I first entered the local college as my uncle-sam helped me and with any left-over cash I put into my new savings stash for the possible future purchase of either AR's (2AX or 5 ), Dyna A-50, Wharfedale 60 or 70 or Heath Kits' version of some AR speaker. I was torn and I do not lie when I say I had huge piles of the 3 top stereo magazines and 5 shoe boxes full of 'Reader-Service' advertising brochures on just about everything hi-fi and stereo related printed material. Back then being my age and the love of music and stereo was a major part of life's enjoyment.

Getting back to the differences, I can’t recall hearing much of a difference at all while in the back of my mind was AR’s popular slogan of “The best speaker we know how to build” constantly echoed. Plus, as that statement kept on repeating I also knew that they were AR's latest and greatest so, if AR thought they were better then, they just have to be. In hindsight, I'm glad I chose the 3a's and I don't have to worry about the midrange falling apart or the tweeter's dome lifting off either as seems to be reported with the AR-3 lately. *(Secretly, they both did lack some highs with 3a's giving an ever slight hint more*. please don't tell others if you're in denial).  Or so I fooled myself into believing as I was young and hot and ready to spend some money while I had it in my pocket. Otherwise, I'd have to spend it on gas, and taking my other half to the movies and A&W afterwards and spend it that way. I held onto that 400+ dollars tightly for those speakers I so desperately wanted!  Where were you at with AR speakers in 1971?

Besides knowing that I could get each cabinet at E.J.Korvettes for AR’s MSRP price, I also knew that I had already located one or two stores and other out-lets of stereo componentry much cheaper to the tune of $196. for each brand spanking-new AR-3a on Utica Ave. in Brooklyn.

Ultimately I settled for the reasoning that AR was pushing their newer speaker’s edition because it was up dated and the smaller dome tweeter made more sense too as did the more compliant looking foam roll suspension on the their new woofer, and although the 3a had been out since 1967, I was left with no other determining factor except to gravitate and believe AR’s claim. I mean after all this was AR telling me the newer version was 'better' and I wanted ‘better’ even at that early stage of my AR personal history. This purchase for me was a huge and important one.

 

Another common mistake newcomers make is serial numbers and cabinet finishes.

There was one hitch to my decision to purchase the 3a’s, this huge whole-seller of hi-fi components and that was when I finally chose my 1971 date to go buy my ARs and made the drive into that old and more chaotic than ever boro of Brooklyn, the whole-seller only had one left. I had to decide either to forget my exciting first-time purchase or take one and come back for the second.

When I uncomfortably explained to the salesman that I didn’t want to do that because of my fear that the cabinets would not match, he gave me all the reasons why there would only be a rare day when anyone could buy AR speakers and have the serial numbers be close, much less mean anything or even the finishes being identical and that was:

Suppliers sell different numbers of speakers at any given time. He explained that some purchasers come in and buy pairs while often times single and multiple numbers are sold therefor serial numbers were mixed and and often times not sequential.  In terms of matching wood finishes, AR’s cabinet assembly line could not guarantee the same grain of wood on every piece of veneer to match as trees don’t match grain and color while growing. Yes, the cabinet assemblers may make some attempts at matching wood grain but, typically that is something that couldn’t be assured unless the list price was higher due to more hours used in production. I took just the one and went back for the second hoping the cabinet finishes would be close. Luckily, mine were close enough.

So, all of you non-cognoscenti folks out there, please stop with making any points about serial numbers or finishes, as it’s not a valid point. And if someone has close serial numbers and or similar grain patterns, consider it only the luck of the draw.

FM

[Giorgio AR]

15 hours ago, frankmarsi said:

A brilliant and oh so valid post by Fedeleluigi.     

As difficult as it is to pin-point memory recall I can to a limited degree remember the times I spent in 1967-68 at the biggest store of its type on Staten Island, our first.

There I asked the nerdy guys who worked there on several occasions to A B the AR-3 and AR-3a for me. Although their store set-up and placement of the speakers wasn’t optimum, I can recall that I concentrated on the high frequencies and bass tones in my listening.

It was very difficult to ascertain any differences except the notion that AR’s documentation in every advertising piece and test-result review I read over and over while deciding which speaker to buy only indicated the AR-3a’s were improved.

At my then ripe old age of 20-21 (1971), the AR-3 remained at its listed price while the AR-3a came in at I recall about $25. more each and that increase X 2 for my budget was a big deal.

Getting back to the differences, I can’t recall hearing much of a difference at all and in the back of my mind was AR’s popular slogan of “The best speaker we know how to make” constantly echoed in my mind. Plus, as that statement kept on repeating I also knew that they were AR's latest and greatest so, if AR thought they were better then, they just have to be. In hindsight, I'm glad I chose the 3a's and I don't have to worry about the midrange falling apart or the tweeter's dome lifting off either as seems to be reported with the AR-3 lately. *(Secretly, they both did lack some highs withe 3a's giving an ever slight bit more*. please don't tell others if you're in denial). * Or so I fooled myself in believing as I as I was young and hot and ready to spend some money while I had it in my pocket. Otherwise, I'd have to spend it on gas, cigarettes and taking my other half to the movies and A&W afterwards in a mere few weeks. I held onto that 400+ dollars tightly for those speakers I so deparately wanted!

Besides knowing that I could get each cabinet at Korvettes for AR’s listed price, I also knew that I had already located one or two stores and other out-lets of stereo componentry much cheaper to the tune of $196. for each brand spanking-new AR-3a on Utica Ave. in Brooklyn.

Ultimately I settled for the reasoning that AR was pushing their newer speaker’s edition because it was up dated and the smaller dome tweeter made more sense too as did the more compliant looking foam roll suspension on the their new woofer, and although the 3a had been out since 1967, I was left with no other determining factor except to gravitate and believe AR’s claim. I mean after all this was AR telling me the newer version was better and I wanted ‘better’ even at that early stage of my AR personal history. This purchase for me was a huge and important one.

Another common mistake newcomers make is serial numbers and cabinet finishes.

There was one hitch to my decision to purchase the 3a’s, this huge whole-seller of hi-fi components and that was when I final chose my 1971 date to go buy my ARs and made the drive into that old and more chaotic than ever boro of Brooklyn, the whole-seller only had one left. I had to decide either to forget my exciting first-time purchase or take one and come back for the second.

When I uncomfortably explained to the salesman that I didn’t what to do that because of my fear that the cabinets would not match, he gave me all the reasons why there would only be a rare day when anyone could buy AR speakers and have the serial numbers be close, much less mean anything or even the finishes being identical and that was:

Suppliers sell different numbers of speakers at any given time. He explained that some purchasers come in and buy pairs while often times single and multiple numbers are sold therefor serial numbers were mixed and and often times not sequential.  In terms of matching wood finishes, AR’s cabinet assembly line could not guarantee the same grain of wood on every piece of veneer to match as trees don’t match grain and color while growing. Yes, the cabinet assemblers may make some attempts at matching wood grain but, typically that is something that couldn’t be assured unless the list price was higher due to more hours used in production. I took just the one and went back for the second hoping the cabinet finishes would be close. Luckily, mine were close enough.

So, all of you non-cognoscenti folks out there, please stop with making any points about serial numbers or finishes, as it’s not a valid point. And if someone has close serial numbers and or similar grain patterns, consider it only the luck of the draw.

Bravo Frank, you added another pleasant story of a purchase (now almost 50 years ago) of a pair of AR Improved, the AR3a that replaced the previous AR3, the "best AR ever built" and that AR declares, as then will also with AR10 to be a further improvement of the previous series!
They are gleanings, but all the top-of-the-range ARs are the best speakers produced at the time of their debut, each one however has its own characteristics, but all are at the top.

Probably in this philosophy we can also understand the AR LST, a category apart from the AR3 / 3a / 10PII / AR90 saga, but it can also be an "improvement" of AR3a, from which it derives in any case in the components, but very different for the different relationship between the low range and the rest of the frequencies.

 

[scottie munoz]

On 12/1/2020 at 12:38 PM, frankmarsi said:

 

 

On 12/1/2020 at 12:38 PM, frankmarsi said:

 

 

[giovanni56]

2 hours ago, scottie munoz said:

???? 

 

 

[scottie munoz]

2 hours ago, giovanni56 said:

 

It's better to say nothing than something not very nice, right?  Not at you by any means!  Have a good one.

.

[frankmarsi]

 

He may not have anything worth while to say for himself.

 

[Giorgio AR]

On 12/9/2020 at 1:23 PM, fedeleluigi said:

We are sufficiently familiar with the "standards" used by AR

Hello Luigi, I was able to scan a small AR brochure dated 12/62 concerning the AR-3ST and AR-3T, in the back are the original graphics made by Acoustic Research to illustrate the 2" mid and the 1 3/8" tw. 

 

The two graphs published should be clearly visible and interpretable!

 

[Pete B]

Here's a .pdf of the October 1960 High Fidelity magazine with the AR-3 review, a bit

easier to read, starting on pg. 55 in the .pdf:

https://worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Audio/Archive-High-Fidelity/60s/High-Fidelity-1960-Oct.pdf

[Giorgio AR]

18 hours ago, Pete B said:

October 1960 High Fidelity magazine with the AR-3 review

Pete I add another scan of my documents of the comment published in High Fidelity Magazine in 1977 on the AR3a, containing a little "story" from the introduction of AR1, later AR3 and then AR3a, with commentary and comparison between AR3 and AR3a!

[Giorgio AR]

On 11/24/2020 at 8:59 PM, Sonnar said:

Many people knows AR 3a, and when they listen to AR 3 they says " midranges are gone ". 

 

 

 

We await your intervention, multiple period documents, comments and comparisons on our beloved AR3 / AR3a have been added ... the best speakers produced at the time, in subsequent moments by Acoustic Research!