AR 3 frequency response graphics

[fedeleluigi]

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

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. 

Dear Adriano @Sonnar, I'm sorry for your "unscientific" beliefs but after more than one year I can scientifically prove that your supposed assumptions about the differences in the on-axis frequency responses between the AR-3 and AR-3a etc. are completely wrong.

All this because, in one of my recent electro-acoustic books I've found (much to my surprise) the on-axis frequency responses of both the AR-3 and the AR-3a. But perhaps most important is that the measurements were performed by the same engineer (one of the best electro-acoustic engineers  known) in an anechoic chamber. So these frequency response measurements can be absolutely compared (apples with apples as I told you in my previous posts).

By examining them carefully, it is clear that the on-axis frequency responses are very very similar for both speakers.

Both have an identical frequency response pattern with a similar (practically identical) high frequency roll off. Again, the on-axis frequency responses are really very very similar, indeed, taking into account the manufacturing tolerances, they could easily belong to two different speakers of the same type.

The on-axis response of the AR-3a measured by Allison-Berkovitz in an anechoic chamber and that of the AR-3a measured by the author and reported in his book are superimposed. They are similar but not perfectly identical. The differences that can be observed between the two AR-3as are perfectly comparable to those that can be observed between the frequency responses of the AR-3 and the AR-3a.

Room response is not reported. However, for reasons of physics, due to the different dispersion of the mid-range and high-range drivers (greater in those of the AR-3a) the power response benefits the AR-3a in in a reverberant room. In other words, when these speakers were new, the AR-3a had more "sparkling highs" and more open sound than the AR-3 in a common listening room.

As the book is recent, for copyright reasons, I cannot post the graphics here. If you are interested in, please contact me and I will phoytocopy the image and send it by mail to you privately.

Luigi

[frankmarsi]

12-21-2021 12PM EST

Dear fedeleluigi,        

I'm glad that you've posted evidence of actual tests reports but, I fear it may all fall on deaf-ears.

Back when I bought my 3a's I read countless test-reports from 1967 to the day I bought AR-3a's in 1971. At first it was a dollar for dollar struggle for me as to which ones I could or would buy but, as I've stated in previous  posts, "AR" stated their efforts of an 'up-grade' about their then new AR-3a and that it was a better speaker. And although the AR-3 was actually cheaper back then the AR-3a, AR's own admission of the 3a being a better speaker is what ultimately swayed my decision and, I'm glad I listened to what AR Corp. was saying. Fifty years later for me I find it laughably sad how some folks refuse to understand but, instead have created this misconception solely out of ignorance and inexperience. I've repeated my post below in which I speak of more of the physical aspects whereas you've provided scientific and proven results.

'Here', it's much like the older guys who drive around in newish Chevy-Corvettes. Some don't know a thing about engines or cars but, they must and just have to have a Corvette. Same these days with certain heralded vintage speakers. Additionally, some just don't know, want to know or understand how 'every change makes a difference' in the world of high-fidelity. Seemingly, only a few here and across the 'consumer-world' delve into how important and  with valid  reasoning it is to put together a better system by using better cables for both speaker hook-up and better cabling between components, better phono-cartridges, tone-arms, tables, CD players and an understanding of the differences room placement can make. I liken it to certain automobile drivers who just jump into the car never thinking or considering or caring about the mechanics or fundamentals of their machine while many don't give a damn about the rules of the road or have any common-courtesy while driving. In closing it seems that we are all victimized by the 'Key-Board-Shield' as some will lie, exaggerate, and base their perceptions and opinions on B.S. while parroting, plagiarizing and making statements that they've read elsewhere and adopted as heir own all the while not having any real experience or knowledge. And to those who despise me or have given into the human weakness of jealousy and arrogance will know who I'm speaking to.     

FM

 

"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'. 

FM

1.6v.

[genek]

When I bought my speakers in 1975, the dealer had both AR3 and AR-3a in his listening room. With level controls at the same settings, the 3a definitely had stronger mids and highs, though it was easy enough to turn them down a bit and make them sound almost identical to the 3 (we didn't try turning the 3 up to see if it would sound like the 3a, but it wouldn't surprise me if that would have worked just as well).

The biggest difference I noticed between 3 and 3a was that the 3a sounded a bit "smoother" in the upper bass/lower midrange (at the time, I did not know that the 3a crossed from LF to MR at a lower frequency).

That's my recollection of 3/3a comparison when both were new. I've never had the opportunity to do the same comparison with 50-year old units.

[fedeleluigi]

On 12/21/2021 at 5:46 PM, frankmarsi said:

I'm glad that you've posted evidence of actual tests reports but, I fear it may all fall on deaf-ears.

Thanks a lot Frank,

Since CSP is the most important source of information in the world about Acoustic Research, whenever possible, I try to point out inaccuracies and errors. Unfortunately there are now many and unfortunately I don't have the time to intervene for each of them.

[fedeleluigi]

On 12/21/2021 at 6:30 PM, genek said:

When I bought my speakers in 1975, the dealer had both AR3 and AR-3a in his listening room. With level controls at the same settings, the 3a definitely had stronger mids and highs, though it was easy enough to turn them down a bit and make them sound almost identical to the 3 (we didn't try turning the 3 up to see if it would sound like the 3a, but it wouldn't surprise me if that would have worked just as well).

The biggest difference I noticed between 3 and 3a was that the 3a sounded a bit "smoother" in the upper bass/lower midrange (at the time, I did not know that the 3a crossed from LF to MR at a lower frequency).

That's my recollection of 3/3a comparison when both were new. I've never had the opportunity to do the same comparison with 50-year old units.

👍This is exactly what the magazines of the time (I posted previously) wrote!

[genek]

One thing to add: the dealer listening room was about as dead as a room could be without being an actual anechoic chamber. Carpet, acoustical ceiling, draped walls. So there was little or no reverberant field to speak of. It was great for comparing speakers for differences, but if I had never heard ARs in a real room before I don't think I would have liked either of them very much.

[frankmarsi]

12-26-2021 1:30EST

In my earlier days of frequenting practically every ‘hi-fi’ store in Manhattan, NY.  It was as if I was walking into a jungle of electronic gear that I was seeing and reading about in the big three available magazines of the time in addition to late edition of "Allied's" catalog and reader-service mailing pieces I was endlessly receiving in in the mail. Feeling wildly overwhelmed, I would first sashay over to the speakers and components I had read about. At the young age of 17 I had to summon up the courage to have the body-language and ability to come across as if I knew about the hobby I was getting deeper into and so interested in. Of course, as some presently do on the internet hi-fi forums, I had to ‘fake’ the little knowledge I had about certain components but, in short time I became conversational.

In those formative years, my concentration was on AR speakers and Dynaco electronics. These two brand names seemed to me to be the better and middle-class level components I could barely financially approach. Those two names were almost a ‘standard’ pairing in the field. In fact it wasn’t until after high-school when I started my first full-time job in Manhattan working at a smaller stock-trading firm on Pine St. And although, we had some of the first computers named used in the business, “UniVac” was slowly taking over people like me, a stock-order-clerk over the phone and writing the order by hand, those CPU’s would break down a few times a day making us all work harder. In any event the company told us that someday soon, the room full of ‘open-order’ phone clerks such as myself would be reduced to a hand full of supervisors and computers only.

Below, some ‘net’ photo swipes of what I would typically see in a late ’60s early 1970s hi-fi stores, certainly not the best way to audition speakers. Actually, looks like some member's so-called set-ups. Notice speakers randomly incorrectly placed on floors. For some, buying was mostly a roll of the dice. Thankfully, by late 1974 through out 1975 upper-tier showrooms were carrying Phase Linear, Dynaco, SoundCraftsman and many others in that price range. If you wanted to find the even higher priced components, you'd have to seek other stores who carried the 'Higher-End' items. For smug, elitist's budgets that I couldn't afford stores, they were around also.

FM

1.8v.

 

[Pete B]

How close is the AR-11 to the 3a, anyone heard them side by side?

[Delroy crosbieKerone143]

I have got a pair of ar 94er03244 speakers do you know any thing about them as I can't find them on the website.

[Giorgio AR]

On 12/27/2021 at 5:22 PM, Pete B said:

How close is the AR-11 to the 3a

Pete, if you have followed what I have written and illustrated over time with photos, in my collection I have AR3a and also AR10TT, in my opinion if AR10 as per tradition AR are the "improved" version and the "best speaker produced at the time", my small contribution in perceiving the difference between AR3a and its evolution is certainly a deeper and "stronger" bass compared to the next one (but compared with the AR10TT MK2), certainly similar, in the mid-range, certainly more sensitive and efficient than the tweeter of AR10 (I usually listen to the AR3a with recommended attenuation and with the AR10TT switches mid and high respectively at -6Db and -3Db (also -6Db), the lateral dispersion between the two tweeters is very similar, I find the AR3's tweeter less " intrusive ", but certainly gives all the high harmonics useful to distinguish instruments and sounds ... intervenes in discreet help to the splendid mid.
Also in the AR10 the tws work the same way, resulting a little more present ...
However, the same pleasure and no effort of listening at any volume for both speakers, are only edges at the extremes of the range, pleasant AR3a, same pleasure with AR10TT.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      I preferred the AR10TT previously, the AR3a are more listened to these days, but having to choose, I love both equally ... maybe different moods can make me temporarily prefer one over the other!

[Giorgio AR]

37 minutes ago, Delroy crosbieKerone143 said:

I have got a pair of ar 94er03244 speakers

If you go to the "search" and type AR94 or AR 94 you should find many topics about these speakers and their brothers ... they are still excellent speakers, with excellent components.
Any repairs, both of the loudspeakers, and of the crossover and cabinets, are as for the other ARs, it is important to refer to correct spare parts and / or with the same original values (especially in the capacitor values), it is difficult to find only the 2 specific woofers; I am attaching a restoration link for your AR94, good listening

Giorgio.

https://www.tnt-audio.com/clinica/ar94rebuild.html

[JKent]

3 hours ago, Delroy crosbieKerone143 said:

I have got a pair of ar 94er03244 speakers do you know any thing about them as I can't find them on the website.

I think there were a couple versions of the 94. Here's a pair I worked on: