Mcintoshkid Posted March 14, 2022 Report Share Posted March 14, 2022 Vary much looking forward to adding AR3 to my collection i have AR4X, AR2AX as well. I'm listening to the AR2AX at the moment thinking about the 3s. These present well in the photos grills are fair compared to some I've seen. Hopefully the seller will be available today I'd like to collect my new toys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samberger0357 Posted March 14, 2022 Report Share Posted March 14, 2022 49 minutes ago, Mcintoshkid said: Vary much looking forward to adding AR3 to my collection i have AR4X, AR2AX as well. I'm listening to the AR2AX at the moment thinking about the 3s. These present well in the photos grills are fair compared to some I've seen. Hopefully the seller will be available today I'd like to collect my new toys. Congrats! Your handle being what it is are you going to drive them with a Mac? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcintoshkid Posted March 14, 2022 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2022 I will be driving them with a MC7270. I have been running my Pioneer SX1980 lately and really like the phone stage so probably run them with the pioneer for a while it has plenty of power to run the 3s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samberger0357 Posted March 14, 2022 Report Share Posted March 14, 2022 Enjoy! Â I had a pair of restored 3's that I traded to a local dealer not long ago for some other stuff. He put a high price tag on them, and I started missing them, so the other day we worked out another trade and I'll be getting them back. I'll be running them in a small room second system driven by a MC240. 50 watts is low for them in a main system, but for this second system they'll be used for quiet time listening mostly to opera and classical. Preamp is a McIntosh C11 so it will be like 1963 again in that room. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcintoshkid Posted March 14, 2022 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2022 Sweet, I listen to jazz, rock, classical, I like some of the space age Batchelor pad stuff too. Opra should sound fantastic My 2ax speekers deliver voice like few others I've heard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcintoshkid Posted March 14, 2022 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2022 3s are expensive no doubt. Japanese are tripping over each other for classic Americana. My great uncle had a pair and they had this sound. He ran them with 60rms mono block amps.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonT Posted March 25, 2022 Report Share Posted March 25, 2022 Did you get them yet? I just looked at Ebay and I can't figure out why AR 3's are selling for more than AR 3a's? Isn't the AR 3a a better speaker? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mcintoshkid Posted March 28, 2022 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2022 I got the 3s as for is the 3a better hard to say.I personally wanted Villchur's design. I also wanted a cloth surround alinco woofer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyC Posted March 29, 2022 Report Share Posted March 29, 2022 On 3/25/2022 at 4:55 PM, DonT said: I just looked at Ebay and I can't figure out why AR 3's are selling for more than AR 3a's? Isn't the AR 3a a better speaker? The AR-3 was the first of its kind, and there were fewer manufactured, so if nothing else, the 3 fetches a higher price because it is more collectible. There is also a preference for the AR-3 by many AR enthusiasts, and an early Consumer Reports review back in the day actually found the early AR-2ax and the AR-3 (subjectively) preferable to the 3a (see attachment below). Today, however, it is easier to bring a pair of 3a's closer to original sonic condition than a pair of 3's, primarily because there are more decent used (and rebuilt) drivers available for the 3a. This usually makes the 3a a better bet at a lower cost when navigating the minefields of Craigslist and Ebay listings.. Despite being marketed as an upgrade, AR sold them side by side for a few a years before the 3 was finally discontinued. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD70 Posted March 30, 2022 Report Share Posted March 30, 2022 Hopefully your deal was a success. Post pics if you can. I personally prefer the 3 to the 3as. I've had several opportunities to do A/B comparisons, and always, to my ears, and some of the 3a owners, preferred the 3s! A big BUT, though is the 3s MUST be properly restored to sound as they should. I have two sets, circa 1960 & 65, both with rebuilt mids and tweeters by Roy. The 1960 set has the original oil can caps, and sound incredible. I've run them with SS power @ 210wpc, and with my Scott LK-72 @ 35wpc, which is superb. The 1965 set have been recapped and again, are amazing. Roy's comments regarding the 3a though is on the money. Very close sound, for a lower cost. Cheers, Glenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKent Posted March 30, 2022 Report Share Posted March 30, 2022 2 hours ago, GD70 said: I personally prefer the 3 to the 3as Yeah. Live & learn. Years ago I bought a pair of 3s very cheap from CSP member toastedalmond (sadly George is no longer with us). Turned out they had one bad mid and one bad tweet. I only discovered that after the recap and I remember the good speaker sounding great. At the time those parts were scarce and no one was rebuilding them so I "upgraded" the pair to 3a's. Roy provided some AR-11 mids (identical to 3a but with silver screens) and I used the Hi-Vi tweets. The speakers were good but I never loved them. Recently I bought a pair of Chris's rebuilt tweeters and now they're pretty authentic 3a's, with those nice early aluminum frame woofers. Frankenspeakers? AR detractors often cite the kind of criticism found in the CR piece regarding the 3a: "thick and heavy" and "distant". In this case the upgrade was not necessarily an improvement. btw, those original mids and tweets were ridiculously heavy monsters with stupidly thin and fragile leads. IIRC the mid was about 5 pounds and the tweeter was nearly as heavy! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD70 Posted March 30, 2022 Report Share Posted March 30, 2022 4 minutes ago, JKent said: Yeah. Live & learn. Years ago I bought a pair of 3s very cheap from CSP member toastedalmond (sadly George is no longer with us). Turned out they had one bad mid and one bad tweet. I only discovered that after the recap and I remember the good speaker sounding great. At the time those parts were scarce and no one was rebuilding them so I "upgraded" the pair to 3a's. Roy provided some AR-11 mids (identical to 3a but with silver screens) and I used the Hi-Vi tweets. The speakers were good but I never loved them. Recently I bought a pair of Chris's rebuilt tweeters and now they're pretty authentic 3a's, with those nice early aluminum frame woofers. Frankenspeakers? AR detractors often cite the kind of criticism found in the CR piece regarding the 3a: "thick and heavy" and "distant". In this case the upgrade was not necessarily an improvement. btw, those original mids and tweets were ridiculously heavy monsters with stupidly thin and fragile leads. IIRC the mid was about 5 pounds and the tweeter was nearly as heavy! Hey Kent! Yes, heavy beefy drivers, and sooooo fragile at the same time. You're lucky to have the Alnico woofers. My ears like them over the later version. With the rebuilt mids and tweeters, they are very engaging, and are right there with my more modern speakers. When I was restoring my LST-2's, all 6 tweeters were blown. At the time, no one was repairing them, Roy said they were basically paper weights. Replaced them with the HiVis as per Roys recommendation. Unfortunately I tossed the tweeters. Smack! Wish I hadn't! The LSTs do sound great though. Did you see the Frankenfest AK meet for this coming Saturday? Looks to be a big one! Pete posted about it in in the News section. Maybe you can make it? Glenn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyC Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 11 hours ago, GD70 said: When I was restoring my LST-2's, all 6 tweeters were blown. At the time, no one was repairing them, Roy said they were basically paper weights. Replaced them with the HiVis as per Roys recommendation. Unfortunately I tossed the tweeters. Smack! Wish I hadn't! The LSTs do sound great though. Glenn Ouch, Glenn...You just had to remind me of that bad advice (though I think I may have actually called them really big refrigerator magnets at the time 😒)You are certainly not alone. I try not to think about the number of those old tweeters I disposed of over the years. On the other hand, the 3a/5/LST/LST-2 type were flimsy and inconsistent, often suffering from bent and broken face plates and response anomalies. It was easy to believe there would be no further use for them in the absence of anything resembling the original construction materials. When AR was taken over by International Jensen in 1994, AB Tech Services became the only game in town, selling their remaining supply of Tonegen-made AR-11 type tweeters as a "universal" replacement. The supply lasted until the late 90's, after which ABT sold nothing worth mentioning. It wasn't until much later that the HiVi tweeter replacement became available as a way to bring 3a's back to life. Today, of course, we have a couple of different ways to rebuild the old timers. Very recently, I was even able to acquire a good supply of face plate repair rings through the magic of 3D printing (photo below). Who knew.... Regarding the AR-3 vs 3a...According to Tom Tyson, the AR-3a was less costly to manufacture than the 3, so if nothing else, the 3a was a way to increase profits by selling an "upgrade" to the popular 3. Roy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aadams Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 11 hours ago, RoyC said: so if nothing else, the 3a was a way to increase profits by selling an "upgrade" to the popular 3. By what objective measure was the 3a NOT an upgrade to the 3? Consumer Reports never accounted for sonic differences caused by the span of control across starkly different crossover bands. Notably the 3 has zero control for anything below 1000hz and has much lower power response than a 3a between 500-1000hz. If the comparison were done properly they should have sounded virtually identical at any reasonable listening angle using identical placement. It is unlikely that Allison would have sullied the reputation of AR with an inferior product posed as an "upgrade". Following is an interesting quote from Roy Allison in a Stereophile interview that I have never seen at CSP or anywhere else. Lander: You began corresponding with the speaker expert Dick Small when he was working on his PhD thesis in Australia, and maintained that relationship. In fact, you played the first pair of production Model Ones for him. Tell us that story. Allison: He and his colleague Neville Thiele were making a speaking tour of the United States and had dinner with Nancy and me and our children. So after dinner we sat them down and played some music for them on Model Ones. Their response was very polite but unenthusiastic. It turned out that they were used to hearing speakers, characteristic of the Commonwealth, that had very precise, pinpoint imaging. The imaging of Model Ones was satisfactory to almost everyone who heard them, but not to people as enthusiastic as they were about the concept. I had emphasized dispersion in order to re-create as best I could the performance-hall ambience. I don't want to put up with a sweet spot, and I'd rather have less dramatically precise imaging but a close simulation of what you hear in a concert hall in terms of envelopment. For that, you need reverberant energy broadcast at very wide angles from the loudspeakers, so the bulk of the energy has a chance to do multiple reflections before it reaches your ear. I think pinpoint imaging has to do with synthetically generated music, not acoustic music—except perhaps for a solo instrument or a solo voice, where you might want fairly sharp localization. For envelopment, you need widespread energy generation. https://www.stereophile.com/content/glorious-time-ars-edgar-villchur-and-roy-allison-allison-part-2  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frankmarsi Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 Henceforth, the AR-LST. Quoted from: Posted May 17, 2019 Click on this photo below.   AR-Pro said:  But if you sit facing your equipment, isn't your left ear turned away from your LSTs?     FM) said:  My sweet-spot is not necessarily facing my speakers but, I sit at a right-angle to the speakers as I prefer to be enveloped by the sound almost like being in a music-hall so, I record from where I usually sit facing the equipment.  FM Said:  The room is rectangular therefore with the speakers at one end, and my 'sweet-spot' placing me sitting almost three-quarters in the room away from the speakers, the resultant bounced sound does afford me enough separation to enjoy signals from both the left and right speakers. Typically I'm not the sort of listener that insists equal amounts of sound exactly being a 'left-right', or 'right-left' listening proposition. Nor is that what one hears at a live concert as hall reflections and ambient sound typically comes from many directions. In my set-up, if a bass is recorded and intended to come from the left speaker, I will hear it from the left speaker and ditto for the inverse. AR-LST"s have angled side panels that radiate to the sides as so designed. In my set-up the left and right speakers are a least two feet from the room corners and the right speaker's wall being only slightly different because of a window but, that's 6 feet away, what I'm trying to say is the left side of the room gets a little bit more wall support. In fact, because of the left speaker's side corner wall support, it also radiates a bit more than the right side. I have no issue with separation as the stereo image is intact. Case in point when listening to mono-disks I don't sit there and analyze how much signal is coming from which speaker nor do I do that with stereo disks unless it's obviously recorded that way. Besides, 'stereo' is not defined as 'left-right' or 'right-left', it is actually a blend of both unless a recording defines a larger degree of separation for a particular affect, it's typically a blended support of sound from both sides. While using the phono cartridge shown above which has  36db of separation  being one that has more separation than most. What matters most to me is the separation of each individual instrument's placement, sound and amount of detail in the mix, not being reliant exactly on what's coming from the left or right sides. But, to your point, yes dependent on how much I turn my head the left-right stereo separation can and does vary somewhat but naturally so.  The days of 'Stereo-Separation Thrills and Special Effects' is long gone and not like it was in the early 1960's and '70s.  Admittedly, as desirable as a rectangular room is for listening, no room is perfect as furnishings, curtains, couches, chairs and rugs will absorb and reflect sound differently and will contribute to the over-all sound  perceived and heard. Nor am I the sort of listener that insists tone controls being in their 'flat' position, especially when using AR speakers. I learned  long ago in 1971-72 while using the kit-built (I built in 1967) tube Dynaco PAS-3X pre-amp that in order to have sound pleasingly realistic it necessitated a slight increase of both the bass and treble controls to avoid the proverbial  'wet-blanket' sound that AR's reputation was garnering as compared to say 'JBLs' sound character. That in of itself was another reason AR devised the AR-LST speaker, in affect, more highs and more reflected radiation of sound. AR also modified their tweeters to permit a larger amount of high frequencies as time went on, the LST and to a lesser extent the 10pi remedied that issue long ago.  And not to besmirch AR but, as an example in affect so did the Bose 901 as did Allison and a few others with supporting the concept of reflected sound as being more realistic and typical of a live performance.   Then, if you haven't noticed, I use a S.A.E. parametric-equalizer and have seasoned aka 'tuned' to my tastes and needless to say I go for accuracy and realism. I use the cartridges I've chosen in like manner. As a user of AR products for 48 years to date, it's always been about making/allowing them to sound the best I can. 390 FM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyC Posted March 31, 2022 Report Share Posted March 31, 2022 7 hours ago, Aadams said: By what objective measure was the 3a NOT an upgrade to the 3? Consumer Reports never accounted for sonic differences caused by the span of control across starkly different crossover bands. Of course not...and nobody is saying the 3a wasn't intended to be a technical upgrade, regardless of marketing jargon and magazine opinions. My sentence was "...an early Consumer Reports review back in the day actually found the early AR-2ax and the AR-3 (subjectively) preferable to the 3a ..." These days I know people who prefer one or the other, and at least two dedicated AR fans who prefer the early 2ax over both. My own experience has more to do with "restored" condition of these models, and the 3a has an advantage in that regard for the reasons I mentioned above. There were many speakers marketed with legitimate technical enhancements, which did not translate to a definite "subjective" improvement. Apparently the difference between the 3 and the 3a was/is not all that clear to many people. On the other hand, frankmarsi, we both know the LST technically and subjectively sucks, so get outta here. Roy   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie munoz Posted April 1, 2022 Report Share Posted April 1, 2022 On 3/30/2022 at 11:48 PM, RoyC said: Ouch, Glenn...You just had to remind me of that bad advice (though I think I may have actually called them really big refrigerator magnets at the time 😒)You are certainly not alone. I try not to think about the number of those old tweeters I disposed of over the years. On the other hand, the 3a/5/LST/LST-2 type were flimsy and inconsistent, often suffering from bent and broken face plates and response anomalies. It was easy to believe there would be no further use for them in the absence of anything resembling the original construction materials. When AR was taken over by International Jensen in 1994, AB Tech Services became the only game in town, selling their remaining supply of Tonegen-made AR-11 type tweeters as a "universal" replacement. The supply lasted until the late 90's, after which ABT sold nothing worth mentioning. It wasn't until much later that the HiVi tweeter replacement became available as a way to bring 3a's back to life. Today, of course, we have a couple of different ways to rebuild the old timers. Very recently, I was even able to acquire a good supply of face plate repair rings through the magic of 3D printing (photo below). Who knew.... Regarding the AR-3 vs 3a...According to Tom Tyson, the AR-3a was less costly to manufacture than the 3, so if nothing else, the 3a was a way to increase profits by selling an "upgrade" to the popular 3. Roy ,   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie munoz Posted April 1, 2022 Report Share Posted April 1, 2022 Those adapters. What are they for/ how do they work? Any for sale.  Scottie Check your messages.  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyC Posted April 2, 2022 Report Share Posted April 2, 2022 22 hours ago, scottie munoz said: Those adapters. What are they for/ how do they work? Any for sale.  Scottie Check your messages. Scottie, Attached are a couple photos showing how the rings are used. I acquired them specifically for the purpose of rebuilding the old 3a style tweeters for "Vintage_AR" and others, but can sell some to forum members on a case by case basis. There are no messages from you... Roy      Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie munoz Posted April 3, 2022 Report Share Posted April 3, 2022 I see, the earliest 3a tweets' flange was barely 2 mm thick, I've come across dozens tbstvsiubd great, but flange broken....your adapters strengthen, and likely make that tweets flange the same thickness as all other 3/4" plates I'd imagine? I would like to purchase 4 if your willing.  Reason being, I spent a good fortune having Chris rebuild a set. They turned out gorgeous, as well as...I believe you know I refurb vintage gear for a living. I've. Restored maybe 20 sets of 3a's and 5's. Being only 41 and learning everything secondhand fro. You wise monks, ha.. I know that "east coast" laid back vibe is the roll off of the tweets, but until I listened to chris' rebuilt ( which I hear you both collaborated on)...., that term isn't so applicable. Sure, the hi high end is muted compared to a jbl century ( owned, restored, hated it, sold for still record price on auction site, bought a set of lst's and 9's with profit, and some leftover!). The l100 cult us weird! That is the least flat, overated "classic" I've ever heard. The paper dome is not as bright or forward as the 11, or 9*** tweet by far.  But restored, it changes the character of every 3a I've ever rebuilt using original, hivi, midwest, even a masonite EPI inverted dome for one customer. I now know why you chose the hi vi tweet. With coil, I found it still to bright for what my young ass hhad heard from that speaker before. But I'd only ever heard AR's with 50 yr old phenolic or paper dome tweets up till then. Your ear has a hell of a memory. I'll resend that message.  Thanks for all your help. Btw, the sets of early 2ax woofers you rebuilt last year for me...best money I ever spent. I'd pay double knowing what I do now. Thank you. Scottie  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted May 23, 2022 Report Share Posted May 23, 2022 As most of you know, AR put a lot of emphasis on power response and perfected dome drivers as a means to provide wide dispersion for improved power response. The AR-3 had a large 1 3/8" dome tweeter and 2" mid, whereas the AR-3a had the much smaller .75" dome tweeter and 1.5" mid. These further improved the power response by having wider dispersion at the top end of their operating range, and therefore from this perspective I view the AR-3a as an evolution in the design. However, power response does not tell the whole story, there are obviously other factors such as on axis response, distortion, thermal compression and more. There are also psychoacoustic factors related to the in home listening experience that effect how we rank a give speaker with regard to realism. It is completely possible that some people prefer one design over the other but that might be due to one speaker being a better match to the listener's room, forced speaker placement, or subjective preferences. The AR3 has less baffle step than the late production AR-3a and that might make it sound better in certain positions and rooms, of course the opposite may also be true. Edit: Reading Roy's post where he provides a quote from CR, they state that the .75" tweeter is not efficient enough to keep up with the rest of the system to provide the same, preferred balance, as with the AR-3. This makes sense since smaller drivers tend to be less efficient than larger ones. The CR observation seems to be an honest one. However, if you use tone controls, then one's preference may change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aadams Posted May 24, 2022 Report Share Posted May 24, 2022 16 hours ago, Pete B said: The AR3 has less baffle step than the late production AR-3a and that might make it sound better in certain positions and rooms, of course the opposite may also be true. PeteB Do you know about when the "late production" 3a with baffle step correction began? Also, does this explain why the AR11 was never recommended for bookshelf or in wall mounting even though the cabinet size is practically identical to a 3a? Finally, even though the AR58s is thought of as a budget AR91, the 58 was sold as and appears to be a bookshelf speaker while the 91 was definitely a floor stander; Question, do you know if the 58S has baffle step correction different from the 91? You seem to know a lot about baffle step so I thought I would ask Thanks Adams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted May 30, 2022 Report Share Posted May 30, 2022 Hi Adams, If you think about it, on the floor away from the rear wall as in an audiophile listening position is similar to up at ear level on a shelf because both have the woofer close to one boundary. On the floor against the wall has the woofer close to two boundaries. From what I understand the 58S and the 91 have the same crossover except for level controls. Given that the woofer to mid crossover is around 500Hz raising/lowering the mid and tweeter level should provide some adjustment to the amount of baffle step. I have AR-11 s and they sound best in the audiophile position with the mid at about -6 dB and the tweeter at -3dB. The 58S and 91 have less baffle step with a smaller woofer inductor. The shape of the electrical response of the woofer would be easy to simulate in Xsim with a woofer .ZMA file. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aadams Posted May 31, 2022 Report Share Posted May 31, 2022 23 hours ago, Pete B said: On the floor against the wall has the woofer close to two boundaries. From what I understand the 58S and the 91 have the same crossover except for level controls. Given that the woofer to mid crossover is around 500Hz raising/lowering the mid and tweeter level should provide some adjustment to the amount of baf Thanks for the reply. I thought you were speaking of circuitry differences. The following statement is what caught my attention:   On 5/23/2022 at 6:48 PM, Pete B said: The AR3 has less baffle step than the late production AR-3a The cabinets were identical dimensions. I was wondering what change in the late 3a are you referring to? Adams Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pete B Posted June 8, 2022 Report Share Posted June 8, 2022 Yes, number 7 inductor 1.88mH was used early on, and #9 2.85mH later. Many years ago I simulated the AR-3a in CALSOD and compared the results to the many published impedance curves from AR. At that time schematics showing the 2.85mH were the only ones while I pointed out that something closer to 1.9mH was required for agreement. Many denied that there was ever a value other than 2.85mH, then I think it was Roy who pointed out that he had worked on several that had the #7 inductor. Many say now that the #7 was used with the Alnico woofer and #9 with ceramic, but I believe that it was simply a minor change in the voicing of the design as a result of the extensive work done by Roy Allison about the in room acoustical environment. I have no proof but it makes sense. Some of these old threads could be found with a google search just a few weeks ago but now I can't seem to find them. Here's the one covering my early simulation in 2005: https://community.classicspeakerpages.net/topic/1270-anyone-have-ar-3a-measurements-system-drivers/  Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.