AR-3a and TSW-610 comparison

[Guest postjob62]

Has anyone compared these two speakers in similar circumstances? Mine are not set up such that I can do an honest A-B between them, but in going back-and-forth they sound very similar to me.

The extreme highs seem a bit more pronounced in the TSW-610's, and the lows may not be quite as authoritative. All in all I don't think the 610 has quite the balance of the 3a, but they sound nevertheless very similar to me.

Any opinions?

Ed

[RoyC]

Hi Ed,

Unfortunately I have never experienced them...

The TSW-610 and the AR-58 probably should be considered as part of the natural evolution of the AR 3-way design utilizing their 12 inch woofer. Sure the company and engineers had changed, etc, but it is interesting to see where it ended up.

It might be more enlightening for those debating the re-engineering of milestones like the AR-3a's and AR-11's to gather info on these later models. I doubt many know they ever existed.

Roy

[Guest richd]

I have not heard the any TSW speaker but the design of this series of AR speakers has always confused me. The midrange size grows from the 1.5 inch dome or 4 inch to a 6.5 inch driver yet crossover to the tweeter remains at 5kHz. Even the lower cost two way speakers in the line crossover at this frequency. A 6.5 inch driver is very directional at 5kHz. In addition the distance between the midrange and tweeter is increased which is exactly opposite to what AR did in the LS series. In the LS series the emphasis was on getting the drivers as close together as possible to prevent interference effects in the vertical radiation patterns.

TSW 810 and TSW 910 are really strange since they use two 6.5 inch midranges in a vertical array. The effective distance in the vertical direction is over 13 inches. I would expect a deep depression in the upper midrange is likely if one moved at all off the midrange axis given the 5kHz crossover to the tweeter. The 4 way TS 910 is an even stranger speaker. The lower midrange is an 8 inch driver and the upper midrange remains the dual 6.5 inch drivers. The effective cone area of the upper midrange exceeds the lower midrange. To add to the mystery of the TS 910 the tweeter diameter increases from ¾ inches to 1 inch.

Does anybody in the group have any idea what the AR engineers were trying to do achieve in the TSW series?

David Rich

[Steve F]

"Does anybody in the group have any idea what the AR engineers were trying to do achieve in the TSW series?"

As I have opined previously, the TSW Series was primarily marketing-driven, not engineering-driven. AR’s marketing folks took stock of the then-current loudspeaker business and saw that the trend at the time was to use larger, more directional midrange drivers for a “tightly focused,” less widely-dispersed (and hence less reflective and diffuse) sound. The mid- to late-80’s was a period of narrow-dispersion “audiophile” speakers where “imaging” was king. Remember also that the Connoisseur Series introduced just a year or so before the TSW’s also used 6.5” mids and were highly-regarded. (One of the Connoisseurs, the 35, even made it onto the Stereophile Recommended Components list, a rarity for AR speakers).The TSW’s were the popularly-priced versions of the Connoisseurs. The Hondas to the Acuras, if you will.

The double 6.5” mids in the 810 and 910 would have adversely affected their vertical dispersion, but not their horizontal dispersion. One of the reasons that the 810 and 910 used double mids and the 1” tweeter was increase their power handling. Large speakers such as those could logically be expected to be used in large rooms with big amps. Their double-woofer systems could already handle lots of power; with double mids and a 1” dome (instead of a ¾” dome), the mids and highs could now keep up with the woofers from a PH standpoint. Yes, it would have been more consistent, from a marketing standpoint, if all the TSW’s used the 1” dome, but marketing has certainly never been one of AR’s strong suits.

All in all, the TSW’s were competently-designed speakers, in keeping with the popular conventions of their day.

Ground-breaking, trend-setting trailblazers like the 3, 3a, LST and 9?

No.

Pretty good sounding, normal speakers that followed the accepted engineering practices of their time?

Yes.

Steve F.

[Guest richd]

> Remember also

>that the Connoisseur Series introduced just a year or so

>before the TSW’s also used 6.5” mids and were highly-regarded.

Yes but in the Connoisseur 50 the midrange runs from 350Hz to 2.5kHz. In the TSW series it runs from 700Hz to 5KHz with the same 12inch woofer. The 6.5 inch driver is a good choice for the Connoisseur crossover. Going an octave higher would suggest a smaller driver. I cannot recall a competitive speaker that used a 6.5 inch driver with a 700Hz crossover (TSW 510 and 610). No information in the library on the type of crossovers used in the Connoisseur or TSW speakers. The crossover slopes make a big difference in the speaker performance so comparisons between the two lines is difficult.

> (One of the Connoisseurs, the 35, even made it onto the

>Stereophile Recommended Components list, a rarity for AR

>speakers).

The T35 is not in the classic speaker pages library. The Stereophile review suggests it is a 2 1/2way with a tweeter crossover of around 4KHz. The T35 uses the larger 1 inch tweeter. The TSW 410 was tested in the same issue (October 1987). That speaker is a true 3 way. The TSW 410 has a 3.8kHz to the tweeter. Lower than the others in the TSW series. The crossover from midrange to woofer is also lower at 450Hz. It is strange that the lower crossover point is used with the 8 inch woofer of the 410 but the 510 and 610, which have bigger woofers, had the 700Hz crossover point. Atkinson concludes his TSW 410 review:

"its tonal voicing is more suitable for rock than classical in my opinion, and it lacks subtlety ...I suggest that you stick with ARs Connoisseur series"

>The double 6.5” mids in the 810 and 910 would have adversely

>affected their vertical dispersion, but not their horizontal

>dispersion. One of the reasons that the 810 and 910 used

>double mids and the 1” tweeter was increase their power

>handling. Large speakers such as those could logically be

>expected to be used in large rooms with big amps.

OK this may make sense for the 3 way 810 but the 910 has a lower 8 inch midrange which runs from 200Hz to 550Hz. That driver would appear to limit the dynamic range of the speaker (if the woofer themselves do not limit it). The two 6.5 inch drivers do not make sense to me as upper midrange speaker (550Hz to 5kHz) even if dynamics was an important issue in the TSW 910 design.

Stranger yet is the Holographic Imaging series, which follows the TSW series. In this speaker an attempt is made to maximize midrange dispersion. The engineers appear very confused as to what performance parameters they were trying to achieve.

David Rich

[Steve F]

Rich D--

>Yes but in the Connoisseur 50 the midrange runs from 350Hz to 2.5kHz. In the TSW series it runs from 700Hz to 5KHz with the same 12inch woofer. The 6.5 inch driver is a good choice for the Connoisseur crossover. Going an octave higher would suggest a smaller driver. I cannot recall a competitive speaker that used a 6.5 inch driver with a 700Hz crossover (TSW 510 and 610)…The crossover slopes make a big difference in the speaker performance so comparisons between the two lines is difficult.

SF--

Remember, the TSW was a marketing-driven line. You keep referring to "what the engineers had in mind," when, in fact, it’s Marketing that drives product design in virtually any consumer-products company. The Connoisseurs were very good speakers. I owned 50T’s for several years and can attest to their quality. The TSW’s were purpose-built to various price points, very conservative and budget-conscious, and did not have ultimate performance as their only goal. This TSW-Connoiseur conundrum perfectly illustrates the difficulty of having two lines share the same brand name. If one is ‘right,’ what’s the other? Chopped liver?

> (One of the Connoisseurs, the 35, even made it onto the

>Stereophile Recommended Components list, a rarity for AR

>speakers).

Rich D--

The T35 is not in the classic speaker pages library. The Stereophile review suggests it is a 2 1/2way with a tweeter crossover of around 4KHz. The T35 uses the larger 1 inch tweeter. The TSW 410 was tested in the same issue (October 1987). That speaker is a true 3 way. The TSW 410 has a 3.8kHz to the tweeter. Lower than the others in the TSW series. The crossover from midrange to woofer is also lower at 450Hz. It is strange that the lower crossover point is used with the 8 inch woofer of the 410 but the 510 and 610, which have bigger woofers, had the 700Hz crossover point. Atkinson concludes his TSW 410 review:

"its tonal voicing is more suitable for rock than classical in my opinion, and it lacks subtlety ...I suggest that you stick with ARs Connoisseur series"

SF--

The 410 was also reviewed in the July 1987 High Fidelity, and it comes off rather well. ("In short, AR has done it again.") Stereophile’s derisive comments about it can be dismissed as nothing more than their historically reflexively anti-AR attitude. The fact that the 35 made their RC list was a first—and I think, a last. But you are quite correct about the 410’s 450Hz w-m x-over seeming to be more befitting a true hi-fi speaker than the 700Hz point in the 510 and 610. I thought the same thing to myself when the TSW’s were introduced.

>The double 6.5" mids in the 810 and 910 would have adversely

>affected their vertical dispersion, but not their horizontal

>dispersion. One of the reasons that the 810 and 910 used

>double mids and the 1" tweeter was increase their power

>handling. Large speakers such as those could logically be

>expected to be used in large rooms with big amps.

Rich D--

>OK this may make sense for the 3 way 810 but the 910 has a lower 8 inch midrange which runs from 200Hz to 550Hz. That driver would appear to limit the dynamic range of the speaker (if the woofer themselves do not limit it).

SF--

The AR-9 used an 8" lower mid from 200-1200Hz, so the 910’s use of the 8-incher from 200-550Hz wouldn’t have limited the 910’s dynamic range any more than the 8" driver limited the 9’s—assuming for this discussion that they were comparable 8" drivers.

Actually, the dual 6.5" upper mids might well have given the 910 more PH in that range (550-5000Hz) than the single 1 1/2" dome did in the 9 (from 1200-7000Hz). I think what strikes you as odd (and me too) is that the 910 actually had more PH in the UPPER midrange than the LOWER midrange.

Rich D--

>The two 6.5 inch drivers do not make sense to me as upper midrange speaker (550Hz to 5kHz) even if dynamics was an important issue in the TSW 910 design.

SF--

No argument here about the strange choice of dual large-cone upper mid drivers, but, again, a "camel is a horse designed by committee." The 9 was an innovative, all-out assault on the state of the loudspeaker art in 1978; the 910 in 1987 was a formulaic placeholder, a product of "We need a large floorstanding model with 2 12’s and a ‘9’ somewhere in its model number" thinking.

Rich D--

>Stranger yet is the Holographic Imaging series, which follows the TSW series. In this speaker an attempt is made to maximize midrange dispersion. The engineers appear very confused as to what performance parameters they were trying to achieve.

SF--

Again, you shouldn’t think it was just the engineers who came up with the HI Series. Marketing probably sat around and said, "Hey, what if we angled the mid driver on some cast ‘head’ and put the bass drivers in the column beneath it? Pretty novel, huh?" Then engineering cringes and they do the best they can, because they want to have jobs tomorrow. I've been on ALL sides of that fence over the years, that's for sure! Keeps things from getting dull.

Rich, thanks for a great discussion. Most interesting!

Steve F.

[Steve F]

David--

I'm very sorry about switching your name. I made the mistake of only looking at your screen name --richd--and should have looked more closely at how you signed your posts.

My apologies.

Steve F.