Best AR 3 way with 12" woofer..

[Wally]

What is the consensus of you folks that have had the opportunity to review many or all of these.

What was the pinnacle of the development of the AR-3?

Was it the 10pi, 58s, 303, AR3a or what? (I guess the LST qualifies as a 3 way)

Please give details of your listening observations and technical reasons for your selection.

[ar_pro]

Don't forget the AR-91!

Its floor-standing design was unique among Classic Era 3-way systems, and it used the superb dome midrange of the AR-9.

[Kuja]

There is also AR-11.

I also have heard that some people think that it sounds better than more expensive AR-10Pi.

[Guest Bret]

>I also have heard that some people think that it sounds better than more expensive AR-10Pi.<

I can definitely understand that. I'm a fan of the 10pi, but the two speakers do sound different. From things said on this forum and just looking at the crossover, there is every reason to think that the AR-11 should be superior to the 10pi.

I can't have an opinion on the best 12"er, though. I suspect the 303 is the best, but I haven't heard those or the 3a Improved.

Bret

[frankmarsi]

Yeah, how about the AR-LST? It's about 1 1/2 more ofthe AR3a woofer's total output. Serious I've been listening to the AR3a woofer since 1972!

Go ahead ask me! I've been a loyal AR-3a woofer lover since then. Mine are still sounding as if they're new. Better then most of which has come since those early years. I stake all of my years of listening to these woofers since! My opinion, stay with any AR-3a woofer, be it the AR-3a or the LST and you're as cool as it gets! For this amount of money, there's none better!

Frank Marsi

[frankmarsi]

Yeah, how about the AR-LST? It's about 1 1/2 more powerful than the AR3a woofer's total output simply because of it's cabinet. Seriously I've been listening to the AR3a woofer since 1972 in it's purest form back then and now. I've listened to most woofers since the 50s', there's none better, trust me! I'll go back as far the RCA Victrola of 1932 Radio Victrola Upight Console, in which the 12 inch woofer which was 'electro-mechanically controlled'. I first heard it because of my father,(he loved bass too) who bought it in the 30s'. I heard it from 1953 to 1967. He, my father had it from the 1930's to 1971, I played with it from 1959 to 1967(before that with my 50's music lov'in sisters), and then it was all gone by 1971 as being 'not working and too old'. It was crushed by him my father and trashed. After all those WW2 broadcasts and all (short-wave too!), I couldn't believe it!

Go ahead ask me! I've been a loyal AR-3a woofer lover since then. Mine are still sounding as if they're new as far back as 1972. Better then most of which have come since those early years, and certainly after. I stake all of my years of listening to these woofers since! I've even listened to the 18 inch.'Electro-Voice' woofer and the four, 15 inch woofers in my Great Lake Illnois Navy 'Boot-Camp' graduation Services Hall of 1969 of my Basic-Training. The hall was about as big as an American all steel air-craft carrier of WW2.In my opinion stay with any AR-3a woofer, be it the AR-3a or the LST and you're hearing cool bass as it can ever get! For this amount of money,history and service, there's none better!

[dynaco_dan]

>Yeah, how about the AR-LST? It's about 1 1/2 more powerful

>than the AR3a woofer's total output simply because of it's

>cabinet. Seriously I've been listening to the AR3a woofer

>since 1972 in it's purest form back then and now. I've

>listened to most woofers since the 50s', there's none better,

>trust me! I'll go back as far the RCA Victrola of 1932 Radio

>Victrola Upight Console, in which the 12 inch woofer which was

>'electro-mechanically controlled'. I first heard it because of

>my father,(he loved bass too) who bought it in the 30s'. I

>heard it from 1953 to 1967. He, my father had it from the

>1930's to 1971, I played with it from 1959 to 1967(before that

>with my 50's music lov'in sisters), and then it was all gone

>by 1971 as being 'not working and too old'. It was crushed by

>him my father and trashed. After all those WW2 broadcasts and

>all (short-wave too!), I couldn't believe it!

>Go ahead ask me! I've been a loyal AR-3a woofer lover since

>then. Mine are still sounding as if they're new as far back as

>1972. Better then most of which have come since those early

>years, and certainly after. I stake all of my years of

>listening to these woofers since! I've even listened to the 18

>inch.'Electro-Voice' woofer and the four, 15 inch woofers in

>my Great Lake Illnois Navy 'Boot-Camp' graduation Services

>Hall of 1969 of my Basic-Training. The hall was about as big

>as an American all steel air-craft carrier of WW2.In my

>opinion stay with any AR-3a woofer, be it the AR-3a or the LST

>and you're hearing cool bass as it can ever get! For this

>amount of money,history and service, there's none better!

>

Hi there;

I guess I'll put my 2 1/2 cents worth in now.

In 1965 I started out with a less than desirable stereo sytem and a week later I went browsing in stereo stores again.

BIG MISTAKE!!!!!

The first store I went into had a wall of small bookshelf speakers, but I was drawn into this room by the sound of a much larger speaker system.

Or so I thought.

The large wall of sound was a pair of AR-4X's.

To say the least I started slobbering and wanted to cry because I had 3 years to pay off my new system.

I even returned to where I had bought my system the week before and the salesman was going to credit me plus almost the full retail price on top.

Needless to say as an apprentice, I couldn't afford any more.

A few years later I bought AR-4X's and really enjoyed them.

My former wife and I would listen to FM late at night with the lights off, and we kept saying, doesn't that sound real.

We went to a free concert one night in a local mall and The Vancouver Symphony put on a free show for us.

Everything was going fine until I noticed an almost insignifcant in size instrument but signifcant in sound, which was the triangle, which really stood out.

About 1970 I bought AR-3A's and also really enjoyed these even moreso than the AR-4X's.

I was trusted by stores and was able to borrow, Crown IC-150 pre-amp, Crown DC-300A amp, Microstatic tweeters, Janszen 130 electrostatic tweeters and AR-LST speakers.

Subbing the Crown equipment for my AR amp was a terrific difference.

At approximately the same volume level in another part of my house I felt gutting massaging bass, that wasn't as strong, with the AR amp.

This is all that I can say stood out.

Back to the store because of (WAF) Wife Acceptance Factor.

The Microstatics and Janszens were at my home the same weekend together connected with my AR-3A's.

There again with my AR amp a tremendous difference in sound.

This was noticebly clearer and brighter than with just the AR-3A's alone.

Now looking back, I wonder if I would have enjoyed that in the long run over the smoother AR-3A by themselves.

There again WAF and back to the store.

Then an opportunity to borrow AR-LST's for a weekend and using my AR amp, I commented then, that they were worth twice as much as 3A's in comparable sound.

They were twice the list price in Vancouver.

I have lived with 3A's and LST's and they sound slightly different.

I do believe it is their balance amd dispersion characteristics as they have the same drivers.

When real bass does come along, your tummy really knows it, for sure.

My brother worked his way up from the AR-4X's to the LST's one step at a time and I don't know how much money he may have lost in upgrading.

He did say that he felt the 2AX was the better speaker value, if I remember correctly.

I would liked to have been able to provide a good home for the pair of stripped AR-1 enclosures that were on ebay lately.

I've picked up a few AR 12" woofers over the years and I have been wanting to try rubber surrounds on them, maybe, or not.

In another write-up I used figure skating Ice Capades as a referrence of seeing the juniors and working their way up to the champion.

It justs kept getting better.

AR classic speakers are the same.

[soundminded]

AR LST and AR9 each solved problems of the AR3/AR3a design but not simultaneously. AR LST recognized the limitation of midrange and especially treble dispersion and power handling capacity and dealt with them both to produce a single speaker sysem which could both play louder without distortion but more importantly had a flatter total radiated power response and made it impossible to get far off axis of at least one tweeter. This created optimal listening over a greater area in a room. AR9 was at least as ambitious with many very clever innovations which are not immediately evident. The most obvious of course being inclusion of an 8" lower midrange driver to couple the dome midrange driver to the woofers. This achieved several improvements simultaneously. It smoothed out the frequency response, allowed the woofers and upper midrange to operate only in their optimal frequency ranges, and allowed a crossover design with much greater control flexibility for the user. It also cleverly facilitated improved placement of the woofers without any phase transition problem. The use of two woofers in a larger enclosure resulted in signifigantly improved bass, in fact AR9 is still IMO one of the best LF reproducers ever offered commercially. The crossover network for the bass is also very ingenious keeping impedence high enough not to be a problem for most amplifiers and flattening and extending LF response. The semi horn upper midrange is also an improvement. It is unfortunate IMO that AR was not able to include the innovations of AR LST in this design but cost must have been a consideration.

[kkantor]

I don't think cost was the issue. To me, the AR9 embodied a rather significant shift/evolution in AR's thinking about accuracy. Time domain behavior and axial response both took on new importance to the design. The flat-power approach, which reached its zenith in the LST, was consequently de-emphasized. At the time, there was no way to improve the power response of the 9 without compromising early room reflections. (That is what the MGC-1 was all about trying to get around. Unfortunately, to this day, the tradeoff still exists in just about every available loudspeaker design.)

-k

www.aural.org

www.tymphany.com

[kkantor]

this page intentionally left non-blank

[soundminded]

>I don't think cost was the issue. To me, the AR9 embodied a

>rather significant shift/evolution in AR's thinking about

>accuracy. Time domain behavior and axial response both took

>on new importance to the design. The flat-power approach,

>which reached its zenith in the LST, was consequently

>de-emphasized. At the time, there was no way to improve the

>power response of the 9 without compromising early room

>reflections. (That is what the MGC-1 was all about trying to

>get around. Unfortunately, to this day, the tradeoff still

>exists in just about every available loudspeaker design.)

>

>-k

>

>www.aural.org

>www.tymphany.com

>

Your point is well taken. Most contemproary speaker designers seem to have adopted the same philosophy. Unfortuantely, no matter how I adjusted the on axis frequency response, I could never get AR9 or any other speaker for that matter to sound timbrally accurate to my ears. Typical of me, I turned the telescope around and looked at the problem through the other end. Rather than trying to fight or eliminate early reflections, a battle I don't think you can win in a real room, I decided to try to create more of them so that overall, they would have a flat response. To do that, I had to compensate for the relatively restricted system HF radiation compared to the rest of the spectrum. When you think about it, that is much more like the way actual musical instruments propagate their sound. IMO, this is not only a better answer, the sound is qualitiatively different not having any of the overly bright harshness many speakers today have even playing cds and powered by solid state amplifiers.