Which AR's are worth the investment?

[Guest Chartliner]

>what is a convincing representation of musicians being

>"in the room", because it's far too open to a

>subjective response. Ditto, on attempting to discern how a

>transmission line brings out "nuances better than other

>designs" - I mean, how could one quantify that?

I was certainly not comparing a 50 year old bookshelf design to a more expensive (even adjusted for inflation) modern transmission line design with state of the art drivers. I understand the ar3a's are considered to be very good, even the factory rep. for the Fidelity Acoustics said that the old AR-3A's were a very nice speaker. I would love to hear a comparison of the AR-A9's to the current state of the art, perhaps such a comparison could be put into the library too.

One way to quantify (from a personal perspective) the above is to read what this person from http://www.geocities.com/bunkie21/ says about the pair of transmission line speakers that he designed and built himself after 30 years of building speakers....

"I've built a lot of speakers over the course of three decades. I've lost count. But this is my first transmission-line design.

I'm not starting with a clean slate here, I've used these Vifa components before, not just in this type of speaker. I know these parts quite well, or at least I thought I did. In my previous designs, I used a sealed-box or acoustic-suspension design. This tends to yield a nice, flat bottom end that extends down to about 50hz before rolling off. The tradeoff was that they were power hungry. For years I drove them with an APT 1 preamp using a bit of bass boost at 50Hz and an APT power amp which had remarkable power. This worked nicely.

Fast-forward a few years to the present. When I completed these new towers, I couldn't wait to listen to them. I dragged them up from the shop to our living room which is in a contemporary, chalet-style vacation home that we have in the Poconos in Pennsylvania. I hooked them up to my Sony receiver and started the drill of playing my favorite test tracks. Here's what I found:

First up I played Paul Simon's Graceland CD. This has long been a favorite of mine. They sounded great! I was worried about the bass response because I had heard that t-line designs are notoriously tricky. I worried needlessly. The bass was excellent! But it was different from what I was used to. Sealed-box speakers are famous for their tight bass. This was better! I could hear all the low notes clearly, but there was something more, I could also hear pauses and syncopation in the bass that I had never heard before. Notes had a way of sneaking up on me.

More about the bass later, let's see about the midrange and high end. The true test of a new speaker design is if you hear new things in the most familiar music. I was really stunned to find that this was the case. In "Under African Skies" from Graceland, I first thought that something was wrong. I was hearing this clicking sound. I worried that perhaps the wiring was hitting the back of the woofer. I was wrong. It was a percussive instrument playing on the downbeat that wsa never there before. My wife Gail was astonished. She's not a hi-fi person and these were the first speakers of mine that she had ever heard. She said that she had never heard anything of such high quality before.

I went from CD to CD, playing a range of different tracks from Dave Brubeck to Stravinsky to The Beatles. What came through was that the sound was transparent, the bass was impressive and the dynamic range (Stravinsky's Firebird) actually made me jump out of my seat!

A few days ago we listened to the soundtrack from Moulin Rouge, a favorite of Gail's. She loved to play it on our boombox while painting. I didn't like this very much. It always sounded like sonic mush during the busy parts. My new speakers cleared it all up. The mix of various songs on this CD are complex. Things come and go, it gets softer and louder. The new speakers handled it all without complaint.

Recently, I decided to listen to the "White Album" by The Beatles. I had always known Paul McCartney to be a good bass player. What I didn't know was exactly how good he is. On song after song, subtle rhythmic and melodic details leaped out at me. I can't wait to hear more."

>>If the AR-2X did not have a problem with mid-range

>>re-production then why did AR change woofers on them, the

>>original open sided square magnet housing that was taped

>over

>>with masking tape was changed in favour of the solid

>magnet

>>woofer. The cone material on the woofers on mine are also

>a

>>very thick felt like material which is not likely too be

>to

>>responsive or quick is it.

>

>Ask Tom Tyson about the evolution of the AR-2 woofers, he can

>better explain their variants in a way that you'll be able to

>appreciate.

>

>Suffice to say that if you're intent on comparing old

>loudspeakers, and their associated technology to

>current-production models, why are you picking on the little

>AR-2? That speaker merely revolutionized what sort of

>reproduction was available in the home - it was affordable for

>college students & young married couples, and combined

>with the excellent Dynaco electronics of that day, could bring

>near first-class sound into anyone's home. But it was never

>AR's top-of-the-line product.

>

>A better comparison, price & technology-wise, would be

>with the AR-9. Please let me know if you'd like to do that.

>

>The 40Hz observation wasn't a technical "objection",

>merely a citing of the low-frequency limit given in the

>specifications provided by the manufacturer. To put it more

>clearly - the nearly 50 year-old AR-2 variants will exceed the

>low-end capability of the current model Fidelity Acoustics

>product. To me, this is a *good thing*. It's only current

>fashion in "high-end" loudspeakers & the

>audiophile press that makes acceptable the notion that losing

>the bottom octave of a piano can be an attribute! As far as

>reproducing the fundamental of a kettle drum goes - well, do

>the math.

>

>It's impossible to speak to your particular observation of

>what is a convincing representation of musicians being

>"in the room", because it's far too open to a

>subjective response. Ditto, on attempting to discern how a

>transmission line brings out "nuances better than other

>designs" - I mean, how could one quantify that? My honest

>suggestion is that if you are truly convinced by the

>simulacrum provided by whatever combination of Fidelity

>Acoustics loudspeakers & electronics you heard, THAT THE

>MUSICIANS ARE IN THE ROOM WITH YOU, then you should RUN out,

>and buy that equipment! And never look back.

[ar_pro]

Thanks for making my point - what a superb collection of unsubstantiated, self-delusional hyperbole:

"subtle rhythmic and melodic details leaped out at me"

"I could also hear pauses and syncopation in the bass that I had never heard before"

"Notes had a way of sneaking up on me."

No mas! No mas!

Unfortunately, it's the tacet acceptance of "analysis" like this that gives audiophilia a bad name - guys who can't write, mis-using musical & pseudo-technical jargon, in a preposterous attempt to describe & sell a bill of goods that at best, exists only in their head. In law, it's called "begging the question", and it's really something to avoid.

That said, I too, would love to compare that 5 1/2" ScanSpeak woofer against the 25 year-old AR-9 :-)

And if you're really interested in transmission-line designs, Google up Irving M.(Bud) Fried, IMF, and TDL loudspeakers. Bud used to sing the praises of Villchur's design - his beef was with how much power it took to drive them.

[Guest Chartliner]

Thanks for the infor on Transmission line speakers, I have the feeling you are not impressed with the idea?

Below you can read an interesting discussion on the AR-9 (since it is a favourite of yours - according to the posters it did have some problems) and other things. After this discussion is an article on the Best 25 Speakers of the past 40 years - http://forums.audioreview.com/showthread.php?t=1885 - even if you don't agree with all of the selections, another poster on the forum that put it up made the point that the list also tends to be the top inovators which just because they invented something does not mean that that was the best speaker of it kind or day.

AR Elite Member wrote:

Join Date: Feb 2002

Posts: 1,187 Quote:

Originally Posted by RGA

"The AR 3 is there(in the top 25 speakers list) because of the design concept and most considered it the best AR speaker made...which apparently wasn't saying much since a lot of folks think it was and is dungheep in a heavy box. I have never yet liked the sound of a speaker with rear firing drivers which are tonally innacurate with phase problems and such. Others support that sound and think it's the best. Sound however is directional and should be directional. One reason I prefer two way designs that sound like all music is of one piece... It would be nice if one speaker could produce it all from a ONE-WAY."

Sceptic responds:

"Acoustic Research was the result of the pioneering work done by Edgar Vilcher. Acoustic Research was responsible for more innovations in loudspeaker design than almost any other manufacturer I can think of. AR pioneered the Acoustic Suspension principle and even today, the earliest AR 12 inch woofers will give some of the finest subwoofers a run for their money. The AR3 was the first truely full range compact loudspeaker being only 2 cubic feet. It made high quality stereophonic sound in the home a real possibility and was a benchmark against which all other speakers of its day were compared. One of its major crimes was being inefficient in an era when amplifier electrical power was very expensive. It was the first speaker to use dome tweeters. It also used a dome midrange which was unique. Whether you "like it" or not, it was used successfully in many live versus recorded demonstrations including two I heard personally. This attested to its high degree of accuracy. The AR3 design itself was evolved from the earlier AR1 which used a Western Electric tweeter. The design continued to be refined over a stretch of some 40 years from the mid 1950s to the early 1980 through such production units as AR3A, AR 10 Pi, ARLST, AR 303A and (Teledyne)AR9 which IMO is the ultimate expression of that concept. There are probably few manufacturers of loudspeakers which ever equaled the quality control exercised in the manufacture of AR speakers through most of their history.

IMO, almost every one of the most highly prized loudspeakers (AR, KLH, and Advent not included) of every era used indirect firing sound in some way. This recognized that fact that the limitations of direct firing loudspeakers in real rooms could not be overcome with only direct firing drivers and is especially apparant in the treble range. These products may include bipolar radiators or a long column of tweeters which puts the listener off axis of most of them, or indirect firing tweeters. Think of all the electrostatics, Vandersteen, Snell, JBL Paragon, Magneplanar and so many others which exploited the reflective surfaces of rooms to improve sound reproduction. (I'm not going to type the B word.)

Designers of two way speakers face an insurmountable problem and that is how to get only two loudspeaker drivers which are inherently resonant devices to sound like one non resonant device over 10 octaves. Most can't. They are inevitably a compromise. BTW, by compromising the lowest 2 or 3 ocatves and then using a subwoofer, you no longer have a 2 way system. You have designed your own 3 way system so anyone who thinks they have only a two way but uses a subwoofer is only kidding themselves.

Offline"

skeptic

View Public Profile

Send a private message to skeptic

Find More Posts by skeptic

02-03-2004, 05:42 PM #8

RGA

AR Elite Member

Registered Member

Join Date: Nov 2003

Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia

Posts: 3,008 The argument for it is all nice and swell but since pretty much everyone abandoned rear firing tweeters...because they bothered to listen to their speakers no doubt, any advantage the set-up had has obviously been surpassed by realistic presentations(even AR left the technology). Stats are dynamically poor and have no bass dynamics. ML keeps trying and failing to integrate subwoofers in to their panels and it just doesn't work...it would make more sense to use a sub. I believe ML has finally given up on the integrated woofer - or will soon to copy Quad. In fact most classical only lovers seem to love Quad so I'm a little surprised you would go with any boxed speaker design. Stats are faster.

You are correct that the Standmounts greatest liability, and it's one all standmounts I have ever heard has, is deep bass. Bass adds a structure to the rest of the audible band that when it's missing can seem light weight. Big expensive floorstanders have to be top notch because while it adds that weight it often adds annoying resonances or sounds simply terrible in smaller apartment sized rooms.

Which is why Woochifer touts subwoofers. The best place for the midrange and treble is not necessarily the best place for bass. So you pull your speaker 3 feet from a wall and the bass is fine but now you lose out, possibly, on the higher frequencies. Two subwoofers placed very well handles the issue of stereo imaging and most quality subwofers will create more depth than any floorstander for sane money. It is also tue that a subwoofer creates a 3-way system. However the end user has much much more control of the sound. Trouble is I have never heard a truly good system with subwoofers because 98% of the world does not know how to set it up properly and the Behringer site for the novice is awfully bloody hard to understand. With a lot of work on the buyer's behalf it can be done but it's work. I always hear the handoff between sub and speaker though - presumably if that was solved then for about 4k you should be able to get a totally full range system of supreme sound quality. Perhaps you have knowledge of the ultimate subwoofer out there.

It's fine for a compnay to get credit for invention, it is also true that much of the time someone else will come along and improve upon the great idea. And if AR invented Acoustic suspension then I tip my hat to AR.

__________________

Main system:

Audio Note AN J/Spe Speakers/Stands

Audio Note OTO Phono SE integrated amp

Sennheiser HD600, Headroom Total Bithead Headphone Amp

ASL MG Head DT Headphone Amp

Cambridge Audio CD6 & Sony CDP 355 cd players

NAD 533 TT/ Shure M97Xe Cart

Skylan Turntable Base

Second System:

Wharfedale Vanguards

Marantz 4300 receiver

Try this evaluation system http://www.audionote.co.uk/anp1.htm

Offline

RGA

View Public Profile

Send a private message to RGA

Send email to RGA

Find More Posts by RGA

02-04-2004, 04:27 AM #9

skeptic

AR Elite Member

Join Date: Feb 2002

Posts: 1,187 Skeptic wrote: "Whenever I go to a live concert, I am constantly amazed at how much bass there is compared to what most home sound reproduction systems put out. I don' t know if the people who design equipment are deaf or they just test it in an anechoic chamber, sign it off and ship it out. Any sound system which cannot reproduce deep bass is not high fidelity in my book. The tone of an orchestra, the power of the low register instruments themselves including pipe organs, pianos, cellos is lost without bass. So is the rhythm. One test I listen for whenever I hear a new speaker if I have the opportunity is for plucked double basses and cellos accompanying other instruments. If you can't feel them, you aren't getting anything like what a real orchestra sounds like and this is a very common compositional technique so it isn't something that you rarely hear. I think this is one criteria acousticians use for judging concert halls as well. Bass reinforcement is critical to any good hall.

One problem with using a separate subwoofer is that unless it is physically close to the speaker it is used with, there will be major cancellations and reinforcements in the frequency range where the their frequency response transition occurs. This translates into major peaks and dips in frequency response in that region which is very annoying to listen to. Booming resonances on some notes and nothing audible on others. Therefore the designer who builds the subwoofer into the rest of his speaker system can optimally integrate it. If I were contemplating a subwoofer, I would buy two and use them as stands for the main speakers.

I don't know much about the current market for subwoofers. Possibly the first subwoofer was the monster used in the Infinity Servo Static I. If there is a clone of it or at least something in the same vein, I'd guess it is a Velodyne servo conrolled 15" woofer. That's where I would start.

Among other inventions, AR invented the dome tweeter and ferrofluid cooling. This allowed the design of small drivers that could handle a lot of power and hence produce high volume without distortion and yet have a very wide dispersion up to a high frequency when compared with all of the available alternatives such as horns or conventional cones. Yet when compared to the dispersion of woofers and midranges, even the best tweeters are relatively directional especially in the highest octave where directional cues are so important for stereo reproduction (what some people call imaging or sound staging I suppose.) Anyone doubting this should look at polar responses of speakers as a function of frequency. They all tell the same story to one degree or another which is one of nearly omnidirectional dispersion at low and mid frequencies and increasingly limited dispersion as the frequency goes up. The solution to the problem of early reflections of low and mid frequencies but not high frequencies has been to pull the speakers away from the back wall, use sound absorbing material on the back wall, or add more indirect firing tweeters. This last method allows the speaker to be placed close to the wall where bass reinforcement is much greater. Don't tell pctower that an indirect firing tweeter is no good. He might just wind up throwing out his prized Vandersteen Vs. Likewise owners of Snell AIIIi and Revel Salon. (I've added 3 to each of my AR9s and KLH 6s. Still haven't figured out how to fix the (original)Bose 901s yet. That's a tough nut to crack.) I don't belive Acoustic Research ever used an indirect firing tweeter in any of its models."

Offline

skeptic

View Public Profile

Send a private message to skeptic

Find More Posts by skeptic

02-04-2004, 02:14 PM #10

RGA

AR Elite Member

Registered Member

Join Date: Nov 2003

Location: Nanaimo, British Columbia

Posts: 3,008 RGA wrote: "You sound like you are personally modifying the AR9. You can add these drivers to most any speaker if you want to.

You also are not truly being realistic. To condemn speakers for not having enough bass is fine when money is no object but the reality is that good bass(not just a lot of it) costs a tremendous amount of money - for CURRENT loudspeakers. The trade-off is so obvious when you hear any big line of speakers the little Standmount is far faster sounding with the trade-off being that no a double bass and organ is not going to have justice done...though some will at least allude to the fact that it's there.

Trouble is A LOT of speakers that can do those Organ and double basses are slugs in the midrange and some have annoying metal tweeters that zing up and completely ruin violins. Directionality means a smaller sweetspot which is not the worst thing in the world...proper system set-up can fix that up.

Your assessment of SUbs is the same as my assessment...the best ones are the ones that are built specifically for the standmount like the Gershman Acoustics Sub 1 for the X1 and I suppose the Wilson Puppy for the Watt(never heard the combo).

If you're a big organ music fan then I can certainly see where you're coming from...you're going to need a considerable speaker - and if you're looking at the current speakers on the market - and let's be fair and compare STOCK speakers then what currently as a stock speaker would you buy.

The AR9 as a stoick speaker apparently had phase problems and was considered pretty average...you fixed them up.

But this does not help current buyers looking for speakers. Most view the Quads as best for classical music as stock speakers - The 63 to me is overpriced dynamically and bass void but they seem to be greatly loved and have lasted forever so maybe they're built for the small British apartments and strictly chamber and light ensemble stuff."

Stereophile's list of "Best top 25 speakers of past 40 years".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This list is from Nov issue of Sterophile magazine titled:"40 years of Stereophile: The Hot 100 Products". Only speakers on this list were mentioned. Full article at the bottom.

AR 3A loudspeaker:

It may have been ugly, colored, and with rolled-off highs, but the sealed-box 3A defined the "Boston Sound" and helped establish the American speaker industry. I never liked it, but I can't ignore it. Pretty much the same drive-units were used in AR's multidirectional LST, which years later was to inspire Mark Levinson's Cello speakers.

Dahlquist DQ-10 loudspeaker:

The Brits hated the DQ-10 for its superficial resemblance to their beloved Quad electrostatic. But with the first Magnepan and the Infinity Servo-Statik, Jon Dahlquist's staggered-baffle speaker helped launch the High End in the early 1970s.

Yamaha NS1000 loudspeaker

Back in the days when paper cones were de rigueur (though a handful of British engineers were playing with plastic cones) and designers were starting down the path to trade off reduced coloration against the need for more and more driving volts from the amp, Yamaha introduced the NS1000. It was sensitive, it used a high-tech midrange dome using vapor-deposited beryllium on an aluminum substrate, and it (ahem) kicked major booty! The Yamaha's major use of technology made many contemporary European and American speaker-makers look more like box-stuffers. I haven't heard an NS1000 in 20 years, and often wonder how it would measure up in today's more refined market.

The Advent Loudspeaker

The late Henry Kloss had the Midas touch: whatever his fancy alighted on turned into sonic gold. In the case of the Advent Loudspeaker, he designed America's first true high-end dynamic sealed-box loudspeaker. And given that everyone was convinced that good speakers needed to use three drive-units, Henry made do with two. He designed the Advent armed with microphone, voltmeter, oscilloscope, and signal generator, but without—the entire generation of speaker engineers who graduated since the early 1980s will be astonished to learn—a computer. Henry made do with talent and ingenuity.

Acoustic Energy AE1 loudspeaker

Designer Phil Jones may have fed the LS3/5A concept steroids, but the AE1 makes the list because it spearheaded the resurgence of the metal-cone woofer, which acts as a pure piston in its passband. (But outside the passband...)

Acoustat 2+2 electrostatic loudspeaker

Between the demise of the KLH 9 and the introduction of the MartinLogan CLS, the Acoustats held high the flag of American electrostatics.

MBL 101d omnidirectional loudspeaker

Critics dubbed this innovative German design the "accordion from Mars," but Jürgen Reiss's bending-mode Radialstrahler drive-units were the first to successfully address the challenge of producing a laterally omnidirectional radiation pattern.

PSB Alpha loudspeaker

Canadian Paul Barton has designed bigger speakers and he has designed better speakers, but none of those has offered so much sound for so little money as the Alpha in all its guises—or, with more than 50,000 sold, has benefited so many people.

Spica TC50 loudspeaker

John Bau's ugly ducking of a time-aligned two-way miniature showed that great sound could be produced from a speaker without the designer having to throw unlimited sums of money at the problems.

Shahinian Obelisk loudspeaker

I first heard the quasi-omnidirectional Obelisk 25 years ago, and it sounded as different then from what else was around as it does now. Richard Shahinian has always gone his own way, guided by his overwhelming passion for classical orchestral music; his speakers fall into the category of "If you love their sound, they're the best speakers in the world for you." However, for Dick to survive and even to prosper through the years lends his efforts a credibility that cannot be acquired in any other way.

Avantgarde Uno & Sonus Faber Guarneri Homage loudspeakers

With American and British loudspeaker design philosophy running along rigidly defined rails by the 1990s, the appearance of these musically communicative German and Italian speakers, which danced to very different design drummers, blew a welcome breath of fresh air into the High End.

KEF Reference 107 loudspeaker

Yes, the elegant R107 was the first high-end speaker to successfully implement a "bandpass" or "coupled-cavity" woofer, but its real importance lay in the fact that it finally rammed home the lesson that speaker design primarily involved engineering rather than art. Yes, art is still an essential part of designing a musically satisfying speaker, but only when that art rides on a platform of solid engineering.

Apogee Scintilla loudspeaker

It wasn't the first all-ribbon loudspeaker from Apogee, it wasn't the biggest, and it probably wasn't even the best-sounding (that was probably the Duetta). It was also a pig to drive, with perhaps just the big Krells up to the task of sinking power into what was, at some frequencies, little more than a short circuit. But the Scintilla was the Apogee speaker that convinced me that the magnetically driven ribbon, with its effortless coupling to the room and its lack of sonic character or coloration, was more than just a historic backwater of speaker design.

KLH 9 electrostatic loudspeaker

An American classic at least two decades ahead of its time. I heard the 9 only once, but I still shiver at the memory.

Meridian D600 digital active loudspeaker

More recent Meridian loudspeakers exceed the D600's performance in every way, but this modest floorstander was the first to show what could be achieved by integrating power amplification and digital technology in a speaker design.

Celestion SL-600 loudspeaker

The first popular compact supermonitor, introduced in 1983. The English company's Graham Bank and Gordon Hadaway decided that, as the main source of coloration in a box speaker is the box, they would effectively do away with it by making it from the Aerolam material used in airplane construction. The copper-dome tweeter used in the SL-600 and its wooden-box SL-6 sibling also pioneered the resurgence of interest in moving-coil drivers with pistonic metal diaphragms. "Had anyone even 1) tried to make a compact monitor sound this uncolored, or 2) charge as much?" asks Wes Phillips. Nope. But what a sound!

Spendor BC1 loudspeaker

Designed by the late Spencer Hughes after he left the BBC, the BC1 was perhaps the finest all-'round loudspeaker to come out of the UK until the B&W 801 Series 2. Too bad its somewhat loose low frequencies were not the optimal match for typical mid-1970s LP playback, and that the CD came too late to save it from relative obscurity.

Thiel CS3.6 loudspeaker

While almost every Stereophile writer nominated one of Jim Thiel's designs, it was the CS3.6, from the early '90s, that was mentioned most often, rather than one of the Kentucky company's flagships. This is because the '3.6 was the finest all-'round package in terms of time alignment, neutral balance, power handling, bass extension, and industrial design—all for about $3000/pair, which, in hindsight, looks like an unbelievable bargain. While Jim Thiel has since designed speakers that exceed the CS3.6 in one, two, or more areas of performance, the '3.6 represented the first full flowering of his talent.

BBC LS3/5A & Wilson Audio WATT loudspeakers

These two tiny speakers—which, apart from being intended to serve as location recording monitors, are as far apart in their design starting points as is possible to imagine—redefined the art of the miniature loudspeaker: the LS3/5A in the mid-1970s, the WATT a decade later. The LS3/5A perhaps represented the finest flowering of a team of audio engineers assembled by the state-run broadcasting company, and which included Dudley Harwood and the late Spencer Hughes.

MartinLogan CLS electrostatic loudspeaker

The elegant and transparent (both visually and sonically) CLS brought electrostats into the mainstream consciousness—you can find MartinLogans on both the small and silver screens.

B&W Nautilus, Infinity IRS, Wilson Audio WAMM loudspeakers

One uses cone/dome drivers in a conventional cabinet (if something resembling a snail could be called "conventional"), the other two use dynamic, planar-magnetic, or electrostatic upper-range drivers in a panel array and conventional woofers in a separate tower. All three were made in minuscule numbers, and all three are the finest-sounding true full-range loudspeakers I have heard.

B&W 801 Matrix Series 2 loudspeaker

Widely used in classical recording studios and high-end systems alike, the revised version of the big B&W took the concept of a high-quality minimonitor integrated with a bass bin to a far wider audience than its $5000/pair price would suggest was possible. "Possibly the best-selling high-end loudspeaker ever sold in the US," notes Wes Phillips, and "certainly the most influential dynamic loudspeaker design of its generation." The current Nautilus incarnation of the 801 builds on a solid base of quality.

Magnepan Magneplanar Timpani loudspeaker

Back in the late 1980s, more Stereophile readers owned Magneplanar panels than any other loudspeaker. Jim Winey's twin ideas of using an array of ceramic refrigerator magnets and bonding a flat wire coil to a Mylar diaphragm allowed him to create a magnetic equivalent to an electrostatic speaker but without some of the latter's problems, and with additional benefits such as ease of drive and much higher power handling. The current Magnepan designs may use a ribbon tweeter and be refined in all areas of performance, but are no different in concept from what Paul Bolin calls "a landmark in the dictionary sense of the word."

Vandersteen 2 loudspeaker

In production for a quarter century and incrementally improved throughout that period, the modest-looking 2 offers astonishingly clean, extended, and detailed sound without ever losing sight of the music. That it does all this for just $1500/pair is a tribute to Richard Vandersteen's talent but also foresight.

Quad ESL-63 loudspeaker

An inspired planar design from a true audio genius, England's Peter Walker, and still in production (as the ESL-988) more than two decades after its introduction, the Quad has survived when bigger, more complex full-range electrostatics have long since disappeared. "A no-brainer classic," writes Paul Bolin. "People will be listening to the ESL-63 40 years from now and loving every minute." Amen.

http://www.stereophile.com/features/709/index.html

>Thanks for making my point - what a superb collection of

>unsubstantiated, self-delusional hyperbole:

>

>"subtle rhythmic and melodic details leaped out at

>me"

>

>"I could also hear pauses and syncopation in the bass

>that I had never heard before"

>

>"Notes had a way of sneaking up on me."

>

>No mas! No mas!

>

>Unfortunately, it's the tacet acceptance of

>"analysis" like this that gives audiophilia a bad

>name - guys who can't write, mis-using musical &

>pseudo-technical jargon, in a preposterous attempt to describe

>& sell a bill of goods that at best, exists only in their

>head. In law, it's called "begging the question",

>and it's really something to avoid.

>

>That said, I too, would love to compare that 5 1/2"

>ScanSpeak woofer against the 25 year-old AR-9 :-)

>

>And if you're really interested in transmission-line designs,

>Google up Irving M.(Bud) Fried, IMF, and TDL loudspeakers. Bud

>used to sing the praises of Villchur's design - his beef was

>with how much power it took to drive them.

>

>

[ar_pro]

Actually, I've heard some pretty good TL loudspeakers. They tended to be British, and cost a disproportionately-high amount vs. the competition, due to the usual expenses involved with importing & selling heavy goods.

Thanks for looking up the stuff related to the AR-9, but it's really difficult for me to wade through poorly-written, unsubstantiated opinion - even the professional "writers/reviewers" at Stereophile or Absolute Sound hit the wall a loooong time ago, and most of the internet stuff merely presents amateurish variations of whatever agenda the magazine writers and/or manufacturers are pushing.

[Guest Chartliner]

It may be true that some of the members of these audophile forums are amateurish, nonetheless there are usually a few heavy weights that dominate and these people can be pretty knowledgable (like you .

In the case of the AR-9's the person by the handle 'Skeptic' has upgraded them as he seemed to be complaining about rear firing tweeters,"nearly omnidirectional dispersion at low and mid frequencies and increasingly limited dispersion as the frequency goes up. The solution to the problem of early reflections of low and mid frequencies but not high frequencies has been to pull the speakers away from the back wall, use sound absorbing material on the back wall, or add more indirect firing tweeters." "The AR3 design itself was evolved from the earlier AR1 which used a Western Electric tweeter. The design continued to be refined over a stretch of some 40 years from the mid 1950s to the early 1980 through such production units as AR3A, AR 10 Pi, ARLST, AR 303A and (Teledyne)AR9 which IMO is the ultimate expression of that concept. There are probably few manufacturers of loudspeakers which ever equaled the quality control exercised in the manufacture of AR speakers through most of their history."

The other guy RGA seemed to agree that the AR-9's have a problem "The AR9 as a stoick speaker apparently had phase problems and was considered pretty average".

However Skeptic said the AR-9 was the Ultimate expression of the Acoustic Research philosophy.

>Actually, I've heard some pretty good TL loudspeakers. They

>tended to be British, and cost a disproportionately-high

>amount vs. the competition, due to the usual expenses involved

>with importing & selling heavy goods.

>

>Thanks for looking up the stuff related to the AR-9, but it's

>really difficult for me to wade through poorly-written,

>unsubstantiated opinion - even the professional

>"writers/reviewers" at Stereophile or Absolute Sound

>hit the wall a loooong time ago, and most of the internet

>stuff merely presents amateurish variations of whatever agenda

>the magazine writers and/or manufacturers are pushing.

>

>

>

[ar_pro]

Yeah, this is pretty much what I meant by "poorly-written, unsubstantiated opinion": "The AR9 as a stock speaker apparently had phase problems and was considered pretty average".

On cursory examination, we can see that as it stands, this statement is worthless - Who says the AR-9 had "phase problems"? What, exactly, would be the nature of these "phase problems"? How were these "phase problems" discovered, and who did the discovering? Etc., etc., etc. But there it is - "Dude says the AR-9 has phase problems".

As far as "Skeptic" goes, it's doubtful that he "upgraded" the AR-9, but he most certainly "modified" it - clearly, the two terms are not necessarily equivalent.

If you have an hour to spare, check out the Library section for the AR-9 Owner's Manual, and the paper "Engineering The AR-9". Please be sure to read the rationale behind the Acoustic Blanket, the absolutely unique design of the 9's woofer-section, and the notes on relative placement within a room - this will all be worth the effort, and be much more valuable than any additional half-baked "opinions".

[Guest Bret]

>"The AR9 as a stoick speaker apparently had phase problems and was considered pretty average".<

What an incredible load of dung delivered by someone who is reporting what he apparently heard someone else say. I wonder how far back in the reporting-chain you have to go to find someone who heard a pair.

Phase problems? Phase problems!? Sounds like someone's going through a delusional phase.

Pretty average!!!???? For 1978!!!??? Spoken like an idiot.

Yes, TLs are very nice. The few I've heard can't get anywhere CLOSE to doing what a 9 will do in the bass region. That has to be experienced to be understood.

Usually all this articulation in the current batch of audiophile crap is the over or under emphasis of some harmonics caused by the speaker's not being FLAT. "Hey, I can hear the pick on the string better!" Yeah, when you remove the thunderous bass of a bass, and remove the bottom two octaves of the percussion, you get left with a pick noise.

That doesn't mean the other speaker wasn't reproducing the pick noise, too. You just couldn't hear it over the all the other stuff.

Oh, just a point of clarification since we're getting "picky," (sorry, couldn't help myself), Edgar Villchur invented acoustic suspension before AR existed. It was the acoustic suspension design that allowed AR to come into being.

Long live acoustic suspension and the bottom two octaves of music, AR-produced or not.

Bret

[Guest Chartliner]

You are convincing me that AR-9 is a very good machine, wonder why it did not make it onto Stereophile's list of "Best top 25 speakers of past 40 years"? The only problem I can see is that it is not that efficient and requires a huge amplifier to perform its best. I will have a look at the library info on the AR-9, thanks.

As for the phase problems, I could log back onto the forum and ask 'Skeptic' for some evidence because we are Skeptical of Skeptic.

In defense of the Transmission line speaker made by Fidelity Acoustics, Krell and others, the reason for using the Scanspeak driver is that by using a slitted cone it helps to control the cone from developing vibrations or waves that produce distortions in the sound. The smallness of the cone also makes it much faster and responsive and with less "slurring". It also does not require a very powerful amp.

The Vifa tweeter is thought by some to be the best tweeter available now, with wide freqency response.

>Yeah, this is pretty much what I meant by

>"poorly-written, unsubstantiated opinion": "The

>AR9 as a stock speaker apparently had phase problems and was

>considered pretty average".

>

>On cursory examination, we can see that as it stands, this

>statement is worthless - Who says the AR-9 had "phase

>problems"? What, exactly, would be the nature of these

>"phase problems"? How were these "phase

>problems" discovered, and who did the discovering? Etc.,

>etc., etc. But there it is - "Dude says the AR-9 has

>phase problems".

>

>As far as "Skeptic" goes, it's doubtful that he

>"upgraded" the AR-9, but he most certainly

>"modified" it - clearly, the two terms are not

>necessarily equivalent.

>

>If you have an hour to spare, check out the Library section

>for the AR-9 Owner's Manual, and the paper "Engineering

>The AR-9". Please be sure to read the rationale behind

>the Acoustic Blanket, the absolutely unique design of the 9's

>woofer-section, and the notes on relative placement within a

>room - this will all be worth the effort, and be much more

>valuable than any additional half-baked "opinions".

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest Chartliner]

It does not matter if the speaker was make in 1978, it is being compared with 2006 technology as it should be. Would you drive a model T because it was the best of its day or drive a 2006 Mustang if you wanted to have the best performance. I am not saying the AR-9 is a model T...its just an analogy, if an extreme one.

I was not reporting what I "heard someone else say", I pasted verbatim what was written by audio enthusiasts on the other forum. If the AR-9 is truly a great speaker then it should be able to withstand some poking at.

BTW the writer of the Top 25 Speakers of the past fourty years said...

"B&W Nautilus, Infinity IRS, Wilson Audio WAMM loudspeakers

One uses cone/dome drivers in a conventional cabinet (if something resembling a snail could be called "conventional"), the other two use dynamic, planar-magnetic, or electrostatic upper-range drivers in a panel array and conventional woofers in a separate tower. All three were made in minuscule numbers, and all three are the finest-sounding true full-range loudspeakers I have heard."

How would the AR-9 stack up against these wonders?

>>"The AR9 as a stoick speaker apparently had phase

>problems and was considered pretty average".<

>

>What an incredible load of dung delivered by someone who is

>reporting what he apparently heard someone else say. I wonder

>how far back in the reporting-chain you have to go to find

>someone who heard a pair.

>

>Phase problems? Phase problems!? Sounds like someone's

>going through a delusional phase.

>

>Pretty average!!!???? For 1978!!!??? Spoken like an idiot.

>

>Yes, TLs are very nice. The few I've heard can't get anywhere

>CLOSE to doing what a 9 will do in the bass region. That has

>to be experienced to be understood.

>

>Usually all this articulation in the current batch of

>audiophile crap is the over or under emphasis of some

>harmonics caused by the speaker's not being FLAT. "Hey,

>I can hear the pick on the string better!" Yeah, when

>you remove the thunderous bass of a bass, and remove the

>bottom two octaves of the percussion, you get left with a pick

>noise.

>

>That doesn't mean the other speaker wasn't reproducing the

>pick noise, too. You just couldn't hear it over the all the

>other stuff.

>

>Oh, just a point of clarification since we're getting

>"picky," (sorry, couldn't help myself), Edgar

>Villchur invented acoustic suspension before AR existed. It

>was the acoustic suspension design that allowed AR to come

>into being.

>

>Long live acoustic suspension and the bottom two octaves of

>music, AR-produced or not.

>

>Bret

[tysontom]

>

>"B&W Nautilus, Infinity IRS, Wilson Audio WAMM

>loudspeakers

>

>How would the AR-9 stack up against these wonders?

>

About the only way those named "wonders" surpass the AR-9 is in "dollars-per-pound." In that respect, they easily win. In terms of accuracy, no one considers them to be seriously accurate transducers, only love-interests among the "golden-eared" cognoscenti. Of your listed speakers, only the Nautilus was designed by the scientific method; the rest were designed by various and sundry "famous" speaker gurus doing some serious "voicing" while smoking rope.

Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes one can make is to put credance in past issues of the two most-famous audiophile magazines.

--Tom Tyson

[Guest Chartliner]

I would have thought that Abby Road recording studios using B&W would have been someone who did consider B&W to be 'serious transducers'.

"love-interests among the "golden-eared" cognoscenti" - Who are these people? LOL, perhaps they hang out with 'the beautiful people'in Ferraris?

From this groups tone, it seems that AR-9's are the pinnacle of loud speaker design. Could it be true? How could the AR-9's tweeters keep up with the likes of Vifa's top of the line ring tweeter for example?

I see a pair of AR-9's for sale for US$500 on the internet, seems like a great bargain for something that supasses products costing 10, 20 or 30 times the price out there.

>>"B&W Nautilus, Infinity IRS, Wilson Audio WAMM

>>loudspeakers

>>

>>How would the AR-9 stack up against these wonders?

>>

>

>About the only way those named "wonders" surpass the

>AR-9 is in "dollars-per-pound." In that respect,

>they easily win. In terms of accuracy, no one considers them

>to be seriously accurate transducers, only love-interests

>among the "golden-eared" cognoscenti. Of your

>listed speakers, only the Nautilus was designed by the

>scientific method; the rest were designed by various and

>sundry "famous" speaker gurus doing some serious

>"voicing" while smoking rope.

>

>Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes one can make is to put

>credance in past issues of the two most-famous audiophile

>magazines.

>

>--Tom Tyson

[tysontom]

>I would have thought that Abby Road recording studios using

>B&W would have been someone who did consider B&W to be

>'serious transducers'.

>

Abby Road is just one of many studios that have used a host of different monitor-type loudspeakers. A lot of studios also used standard AR loudspeakers -- for example:

DGG

Columbia Records

Angel Records

Electra

Connoisseur Society Records

Philips

Archiv

London

Vanguard

Sun Recording Studios

>From this groups tone, it seems that AR-9's are the pinnacle

>of loud speaker design. Could it be true? How could the AR-9's

>tweeters keep up with the likes of Vifa's top of the line ring

>tweeter for example?

Vifa's top-of-the-line tweeter may or may not be better than the AR-9 tweeter. Who says it is, and where's the proof? Let's see the family of response curves to see if it is better.

>

>I see a pair of AR-9's for sale for US$500 on the internet,

>seems like a great bargain for something that supasses

>products costing 10, 20 or 30 times the price out there.

>

It's still a little-known secret.

[Guest Chartliner]

Tom wrote:

>Vifa's top-of-the-line tweeter may or may not be better than

>the AR-9 tweeter. Who says it is, and where's the proof?

>Let's see the family of response curves to see if it is

>better.

There is an article:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/ar/classic/ar-3a/ar3a.txt by the webmaster of this site in which he decribes updating his AR-3a's (not AR-9's mind you) tweeters with Vifa silk dome tweeters(the ring tweeters are better than these) and how the outcome was excellent and ended up sounding better than his father's AR91's.

These guys say it is arguably the world's best tweeter...

http://www.fidelityacoustics.com/philosophy.html

From Fidelity Acoustic's web site:

"We are also introducing the fabulous Vifa tweeter, also known as 'ring radiator', the top tweeter from Vifa. Currently, they are being used in Krell's LAT-2 speakers, Sonus Faber Cremona, Audio Physics. etc. - a truly high-end tweeter.

This is arguably the best tweeter in the world. We sat up straight when they introduced the new 1" dual concentric tweeter also known as the "ring radiator". This tweeter is very special. It reaches down to 2kHz, which is far lower in frequency than tweeters normally do. Most tweeters only go down to around 4kHz, which means the woofer has to reach all the way up to that frequency. This leads to "stressed and ragged performance in the range 2kHz to 4kHz. In the Fidelity RFM-2 you will hear midrange detail previously thought impossible. Violins and trumpets will emerge with a sweetness and detail. It also uses a "waveguide" to increase its dispersion (it also has the effect of changing the driver's first resonance above 44kHz). An instrument, take for example a violin, contains a fundamental note, and overtones that are related in a specific manner. On the Fidelity RFM-2 you will hear the coherence between the different frequencies as a tunefulness, an ability to hear the melody. Until now audiophiles would blame CD, blame transistors for brittleness or hardness. Well, yes. But prepare yourself for a major improvement in the harmonic balance in the middle and high registers from this new drive unit."

>

>>

>>I see a pair of AR-9's for sale for US$500 on the

>internet,

>>seems like a great bargain for something that supasses

>>products costing 10, 20 or 30 times the price out there.

>>

>It's still a little-known secret.

>

>

>

[ar_pro]

Allright, I give.

It's only possible to explain the *same thing* in so many different ways.

ALL of the opinion pieces that our friend, chartliner has quoted are without legitimate substantiation of any kind - they are, therefore, effing worthless.

No one here has disrespected the Vifa tweeter - it could be an outstanding driver, when used in a well-engineered system - which is certainly NOT what you have when you graft it onto an AR-3a!

And as far as the gurus at Stereophile go, the editor, John Atkinson, is on record as saying he had never heard an AR-3a! That's like being the editor of Car & Driver, and being unfamiliar with the Corvette.

To put it simply - these guys produce poorly-written fiction. Personal & economic agendas run deep, and their florid prose is, by definition, *unsupportable*, because their terms are *undefinable*. This sort of thing could be fun (for the non-skeptic) to read , but any sort of relationship to reality is purely coincidental.

It's not our fault that you own a $3,000 "state-of-the-art" loudspeaker that cannot accurately reproduce the final octave of a piano - and it's not our fault that the AR-9 does not live up to whatever bull**** set of attributes are the current fashion in loudspeaker design. If you have the opportunity, listen to a properly-restored set of 9's, and then try not to open a vein.

[Guest Bret]

>The AR9 as a stoick speaker apparently had phase problems and was considered pretty average<

The above was the quote I was picking at. "apparently had. . . and was considered" are words used by someone repeating something they heard or read or whatever. I wasn't "flaming" at you.

Comparing the 2006 top-dollar speakers of the world against the "mass produced" AR-9 is a little unfair, but okay. . . let's.

The 9 isn't going to have the top-end extension. Compared to Revel's best it isn't going to have the best dispersion. Compared to a lot of speaker companies' best (and other ARs) it may not have the most uniform power signature. Were it the "perfect" speaker, it would still be in production.

So could you and I design a better speaker than the AR-9 using the best of modern drivers? Probably not. I'm sure someone has.

BUT, and this is something for you to consider strongly: AR did modify the original design of the AR-9 in later models (keeping their original intentions) to acheive some improvements where any shortcoming was found in the original 9 design.

Somehow the results (that I ever heard) were no-improvement at best and somehow unsatisfying or downright disappointing at worst. The well-liked and well reviewed 9LSi was simply no match at all for the 9 despite its measuring better and addressing some of the criticism levelled at the 9s. An at-volume playing of Berlioz's Requiem or a good pipe organ recording was all you needed to hear to know that whatever they fixed wasn't as important as what they goofed-up.

So I didn't intend to get into this whole, childish "AR-9s RULE !" thing, but they definitely deserve more respect than "pretty average," which is, seriously, a pretty silly thing to say.

Why weren't they on the list? Well, why was a KLH 9 on the list? It couldn't play very loud, had lousy bass, and to get any sort of "image quality" out of them people resorted to using four of them - not to mention that four of them was insanely expensive so almost nobody had four.

Why is the Advent on the list? It didn't do bass as well as an AR-3/3a and it didn't do the middle as well as an AR-5 and neither of those do the middle as well as an AR-9 or AR-90. It didn't do the top as well as an Allison. Why's it there?

Someone, somewhere said something close-to, "the fewer functions a device is required to perform, the better it can be made to perform those functions."

I couldn't agree more. Some say the reason they quit making full-range speakers is because it was too difficult to build a single speaker where each driver is placed correctly in relation to the **room**. Personally, I think that's a cop-out. Cure one or two problems, create one or two more. . . "Gosh, building a full-range speaker is HARD. Let's not, and say we did."

I, for one, am happy that TLs are coming back into vogue because it acknowledges what us "bass heads" have been saying for a long time: If it's missing everything below 50Hz, it's not a good speaker no matter how marvelous is it above 50Hz. If it costs $3,000 and requires I spend another $5,000 on ultra-flexible subwoofers so I can spend my life trying to get them to "meld" correctly, not only is it not a good speaker, it's not even a solution to a problem.

So, leave the 9 alone. Whatever its problems are that have been corrected over the years, the corrections have yielded problems of their own.

Bret

[soundminded]

>The 9 isn't going to have the top-end extension. Compared to

>Revel's best it isn't going to have the best dispersion.

>Compared to a lot of speaker companies' best (and other ARs)

>it may not have the most uniform power signature. Were it

>the "perfect" speaker, it would still be in

>production.

>

>So could you and I design a better speaker than the AR-9 using

>the best of modern drivers? Probably not. I'm sure someone

>has.

>

I was not entirely happy with my AR9s when I first got them. After about 5 years, I began to experiment. Acquiring a CD player was a great help because it allowed me to listen to the same musical passages over and over again using A-B repeat and noticing small differences with various changes. I saw that many manufacturers which were highly regarded such as Snell, Vandersteen, Wilson, Von Schweikert, and others used an indirect tweeter in their top models and so I experimented. After the first pair made what I considered an improvement, I just kept adding them until they sounded "right." It took 3 pairs of 91 db poly tweeters, reprogramming the switches to LM=-3,UM=-6,and T=-6 db and re-equalizing the system to get most recordings to sound accurate to my ears. I'd now put them up against anything for accuracy (and clarity.) How do I know they'd win? Because I compare their sound to that of real musical instruments, violins, violas, and a restored 1927 Steinway M at the opposite end of my listening room. Those are my reference sound sources.

BTW, there's a discusion on another board about Duntech Soverign which looks like an AR9 on steroids. It's a 4 way 2 woofer sealed system in a d'Appolito arrangement with a 3/4" tweeter, (2) 2" upper midranges, (2) 7" lower midranges, and (2) 12" acoustic suspension woofers mounted forward firing top and bottom. The system is claimed to be time aligned, uses first order crossover circuits, claims response of +/- 2 db 27hz - 20 khz is about 6 feet tall, weight 275 pounds, and can be had for about $20,000 a pair. Anybody know anything about them?

[frankmarsi]

>>The AR9 as a stoick speaker apparently had phase problems

>and was considered pretty average<

>

>The above was the quote I was picking at. "apparently

>had. . . and was considered" are words used by someone

>repeating something they heard or read or whatever. I wasn't

>"flaming" at you.

>

>Comparing the 2006 top-dollar speakers of the world against

>the "mass produced" AR-9 is a little unfair, but

>okay. . . let's.

>

>The 9 isn't going to have the top-end extension. Compared to

>Revel's best it isn't going to have the best dispersion.

>Compared to a lot of speaker companies' best (and other ARs)

>it may not have the most uniform power signature. Were it

>the "perfect" speaker, it would still be in

>production.

>

>So could you and I design a better speaker than the AR-9 using

>the best of modern drivers? Probably not. I'm sure someone

>has.

>

>BUT, and this is something for you to consider strongly: AR

>did modify the original design of the AR-9 in later models

>(keeping their original intentions) to acheive some

>improvements where any shortcoming was found in the original 9

>design.

>

>Somehow the results (that I ever heard) were no-improvement at

>best and somehow unsatisfying or downright disappointing at

>worst. The well-liked and well reviewed 9LSi was simply no

>match at all for the 9 despite its measuring better and

>addressing some of the criticism levelled at the 9s. An

>at-volume playing of Berlioz's Requiem or a good pipe organ

>recording was all you needed to hear to know that whatever

>they fixed wasn't as important as what they goofed-up.

>

>So I didn't intend to get into this whole, childish

>"AR-9s RULE !" thing, but they definitely deserve

>more respect than "pretty average," which is,

>seriously, a pretty silly thing to say.

>

>Why weren't they on the list? Well, why was a KLH 9 on the

>list? It couldn't play very loud, had lousy bass, and to get

>any sort of "image quality" out of them people

>resorted to using four of them - not to mention that four of

>them was insanely expensive so almost nobody had four.

>

>Why is the Advent on the list? It didn't do bass as well as

>an AR-3/3a and it didn't do the middle as well as an AR-5 and

>neither of those do the middle as well as an AR-9 or AR-90.

>It didn't do the top as well as an Allison. Why's it there?

>

>Someone, somewhere said something close-to, "the fewer

>functions a device is required to perform, the better it can

>be made to perform those functions."

>

>I couldn't agree more. Some say the reason they quit making

>full-range speakers is because it was too difficult to build a

>single speaker where each driver is placed correctly in

>relation to the **room**. Personally, I think that's a

>cop-out. Cure one or two problems, create one or two more. .

>. "Gosh, building a full-range speaker is HARD. Let's

>not, and say we did."

>

>I, for one, am happy that TLs are coming back into vogue

>because it acknowledges what us "bass heads" have

>been saying for a long time: If it's missing everything below

>50Hz, it's not a good speaker no matter how marvelous is it

>above 50Hz. If it costs $3,000 and requires I spend another

>$5,000 on ultra-flexible subwoofers so I can spend my life

>trying to get them to "meld" correctly, not only is

>it not a good speaker, it's not even a solution to a problem.

>

>So, leave the 9 alone. Whatever its problems are that have

>been corrected over the years, the corrections have yielded

>problems of their own.

>

>Bret

O.K., O.K. Vern, Bret and everyone, why get all upset, the neighborhood is changing, try to be calm, with respects to all. A possible example of my explanation would be: when I first bought a used 1973 Buick Riviera in 1984, a car I had lusted over ever since its introduction in 1963, I couldn’t believe this car’s power, road manners, solidity of construction, street and highway performance with its 7.2 liter engine and 5500 lbs. of All American, Detroit steel. I quickly started to marvel at something that had been elusive to me for so many years before. Oh sure, I had driven (not all mine) a 1974 (in 1975) Mercedes 450 SE, a Cadillac ’74 Coupe (in 1983), a ’61 Vette convertible with dual 4 barrels in 1965, a ’64 Chevy 283 Impala, a 1967 restored Jaguar XKE convertible in 1983, a Triumph TR-3 in 1983, a 1957 Buick Road-Master 394 C.I. with the continental kit in 1963, a ’53 Coupe Deville in ‘62, a 1950 Ford 2 door coupe in 1958 and ’54 Mercury 2 door coupe in ‘59, ’57 Caddy 4 dr. hardtop in 1960, a 1968 Vette rag-top 427 with dual 4 barrels ‘factory’ in ’68, a ’57 Belvedere w/ a small ‘Hemi’, and on and on, there’s been so... many. When I found in late 1984 a ‘Riviera Owners club’ in my desperate search for more information about this great car, much like I do on this site, I realized I was the proud owner of a remarkable mass produced ‘road-car’ that many had over looked and would never lend any a cent of credence to. Ah, but I, a person who has always tried to be sensitive to small details and always siding with the ‘under-dog’ had bought a car that was not only superior in many respects to anything on the road, but was actually one the best cars ever produced, ever! Especially after a few slight amount of restoring. Contrary to most, except for a small number of ‘cognoscenti’ this was truly a very over-looked and under appreciated automobile. Damn to anyone who doesn’t care, there’s even a 1971 ‘Riv’ in the ‘Smithsonian’ to shut-up any ‘non-believer’ about my new found knowledge of this fine old car. By 1987 many owners of the 1979 to 1985 Riviera were clamoring about being able to join this exclusive club of vintage Riviera owners, which only allowed 1963 to 1973 cars to be in. After a short while, in 1989, the owners of the newer models were permitted to join and display and speak of their cars in the club’s publication. Well I have to admit, these newer cars were certainly not ‘classics’ nor did they perform the same in many respects.

I’ve lived in over 7 different neighborhoods in NYC in my life and I can certainly tell you when a neighborhood in changing and when it’s time to ‘get-out’ and go elsewhere. What ever that means in relation to all this.

I also remember in the late ‘70s, early ‘’80s when the AR-9 came out, I can’t recall just now. A close friend and avid AR lover had brought over a copy of ‘Stereo Review’ to our almost religious listening sessions of my two AR-3a’s with a Phase Linear 400 and PL4000 in a big room, my first photo studio in NYC. He showed me an ad for the new AR-9’s and I simply said, “Wow, two 12 inchers on either side with a new old fashion looking mid-range and what appeared to be a higher power handling domed tweeter. After a few “wows and oh’s” about the ad, I simply said, “shut-up and listen to my ‘classics’ (he had 2 AR-11’s, later a set of Allison 1’s), I’ve got ‘Floyd’ and others on now!” He did shut up and we had a typically great night of listening, as usual. My 3a’s sang proudly as they always did, I can’t begin to tell how marvelous they always were.

I know in my heart the AR-9’s are great speakers although I never heard them, safe to say I really don’t need to, my ears know enough about AR quality already. I presently immerse myself almost everynite in 4 - stacked AR-LST’s, so I can accurately imagine what these guys (AR-9’s) can do.

Bottom line is I learned in 1969 when in the US Navy, you don’t tell an ‘Old-Salt’ anything he doesn’t know already about the ocean and ships that sail it! There’s guys on this site talking all kinds of trash stuff lately, including myself, about how this is that and that is this.

Ya know, all in all trust your own ears, filter out the ‘newbee’s’ and simply enjoy your AR’s classics as I’m sure they’re ‘full-size’ AR’s and just ‘go-on-keeping-on’ with your old habits and let the young and newer members ‘catch-up’ to you, as they will eventually. This brood here of full-sized AR owners are to lofty to be set back with the kids just now. ‘Times-a- Wast’in’ and I must get back to my own enjoyment of my AR’s!

I will challenge, that is when my big AR’s are completed (work in progress), give me maybe 6 more months, to a free, multi-musical taste, of what ‘I got right here’ and then I’m sure “flaming’; and the like will flair up real high! I don’t care, my ears know better, no offense to anyone else’s.

I’m happy more than most ‘dudes’ and they’ll either learn from me or walk away with envy. Life is too short for all of us. I can’t help but feel that I must live and let live as I listen to my AR’s!

P.S. I’m speaking plainly and simply as AR speakers were certainly constructed, but they were well studied and deeply researched and developed to simply perform wonderfully!

Respectfully, Frank Marsi

frankmarsi@verizon.net

Watch out! Tonite I'm listening to Beethoven's Overture to "Egmont". Op.84 , and my 4 LST's are rattling the windows and unpinnings of this house!

[Guest Chartliner]

>Vifa's top-of-the-line tweeter may or may not be better than

>the AR-9 tweeter. Who says it is, and where's the proof?

>Let's see the family of response curves to see if it is

>better.

Vifa ring tweeter data -http://www.tymphany.com/datasheet/printview.php?id=112

Information below comenting on the Vifa ring tweeter response curve chart from http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/idealbb/v...ID=31143&num=20

As posted by "SoundandVisionary"-

"Notice that up to 6kHz, the tweeter has a pretty strong off axis response. Above 6kHz, the off axis response is quite nice.

Assuming the crossover frequency is below 6kHz, then you could benefit from a felt ring to control the off axis output in the critical midrange ragion.

ScanSpeak and Vifa make all of the ring radiators on the market and hold the patents on the technology.

The Blue line is the on axis response, measured with the microphone directly in front of the tweeter.

The Green line is 30 degrees off axis with the mic 30 degrees to the side.

The Red line is 60 degrees off axis with the mic 60 degrees to the side.

In practicality, the green line is the one I focus on. Ideally, the gree line should be the same all the through the operating range of the tweeter so it matched the off axis response of the midrange. Also, edge diffraction only occurs with sound that travels directly to the side of the tweeter. Looking at this chart, the frequencies below about 3kHz appear to travel directly to the side. Thus, applying a felt ring will absorb those sideways traveling frequencies and reduce the edge diffraction."

End (I do not have the data for the AR-9) perhaps someone else can post to compare).

And no AR-Pro I will not be slitting my wrists when I hear AR-9's because I do not own Fidelity Acoustics transmission line speakers, I only heard them at the Hi-Fi Centre in Vancouver and was very impressed,perhaps beside the AR-9's I would not be as impressed with the bottom end but the high end is likely to be better with its newer patented drivers. Here is a report from: http://www.audioasylum.com/audio/speakers/...ges/156829.html from an owner comparing the AR-9's to an inexpensive new speaker Axiom M3Ti - "If I dissect this speaker into it's component parts in the typical audiophile fashion, i.e. bass, mid, treble, imaging, soundstaging, timbre, and the rest the M3's perform very well. Individually, they do most of these things (less bass extension) better than my AR's."

I did not insult you (AR-Pro) or anyone else on this forum but you decided to attack me because I dared to challenge your AR God even if lacking as much technical knowledge as some, I am interested in learning and comparing old and new, which is a scientific approach as opposed to a dogmatic religious one(which is not to say that I don't have spiritual beliefs). Russ

[ar_pro]

What more can I say to convince you of the low regard in which I hold amateur audiophile opinion?

I cannot in any way imaginable, better state how *without worth* these scribblings are to me.

Furthermore, if you *are* going to cite these things, at least READ them first - the audioasylum piece that you link to compares the Axiom M3Ti to a NON-VINTAGE AR-9 - a piece of crap that is one step above "white van" grade.

Listen, no one here is attacking you, just as no one here has said that the AR-9 was the best loudspeaker ever made.

What the AR-9 actually *is*, is a pretty effing good design, engineered almost 30 years ago, that superbly accomplished the technical tasks that were assigned to it - and at an affordable price. A restored AR-9 remains a viable, authentic full-range reproducer - perhaps compromised in some ways by much more expensive current-production loudspeakers, but also superior to some of those same loudspeakers in other ways.

No offense, but you sound like an impressionable guy - my free advice is to spend less time with audio salesmen & internet scribes, and more time listening to full-range loudspeakers, no matter what their cost or vintage.

[Guest Chartliner]

>What more can I say to convince you of the low regard in

>which I hold amateur audiophile opinion?

>I cannot in any way imaginable, better state how *without

>worth* these scribblings are to me.

I am reminded of the news item a couple of years ago that Sony had created a fictitious movie reviewer to praise their movies, magazines that place ads for stereo components are automatically placing themselves in a conflict of interest position, especially for the big advertisers.

>

>Furthermore, if you *are* going to cite these things, at least

>READ them first - the audioasylum piece that you link to

>compares the Axiom M3Ti to a NON-VINTAGE AR-9 - a piece of

>crap that is one step above "white van" grade.

I did note that, but was not aware that AR had downgraded the non-vintage machine.

>

>Listen, no one here is attacking you, just as no one here has

>said that the AR-9 was the best loudspeaker ever made.

>

>What the AR-9 actually *is*, is a pretty effing good design,

>engineered almost 30 years ago, that superbly accomplished the

>technical tasks that were assigned to it - and at an

>affordable price. A restored AR-9 remains a viable, authentic

>full-range reproducer - perhaps compromised in some ways by

>much more expensive current-production loudspeakers, but also

>superior to some of those same loudspeakers in other ways.

I have a pair of AR-2X's as I indicated that I am restoring, I can see that they are built well - no doubt the AR-9 is built to the same standards, but AR did abandon the earlier woofer for the ar-2x (open magnet with masking tape cover) and improve it with a solid magnet style because the old one had problems with the mid-range, this is documented on a serious pro-ar site with photos. The point is that any machine is modifiable including the ar-9 - which as someone noted if it was perfection in a box then why did they stop making it? Perhaps an upgrade to ring tweeters would do it good (or not) as the webmaster of classicspeaker pages found an upgrade to Vifa tweeters in the 3a improved them (its in the library).

>

>No offense, but you sound like an impressionable guy - my free

>advice is to spend less time with audio salesmen &

>internet scribes, and more time listening to full-range

>loudspeakers, no matter what their cost or vintage.

A good way to hear full range speakers is to go where they sell them...that mean listening to salespeople. I found the sales guy at the Hi-Fi Centre in Vancouver to be a very knowledgable person, he is in his mid to late 50's and has been involved in the industry for many decades, I also note that he is the contact person on the web site of Fidelity Acoustics. Hi-Fi Centre is a high end shop full of B&W's and several other very expensive high end speakers which lets you compare many of the top end units against each other in private listening rooms.

>

>

>

>

[ar_pro]

Well, I've done my best to try to help you, but it's clearly too much of an uphill fight - de gustibus non disputandum est!

[soundminded]

The problem with recordings made at the Abbey Road studios isn't the equipment, it's the recording engineers. They have a horrible signiture habit of creating a frequency selective echo which is effective mostly on sibilant parts of speech. A prime example is the recording of "Phantom of the Opera." Others include recordings of Kiri TeKanawa singing pop music by Kern, Gershwin, Porter, and Berlin. The Gershwin recording in nearly unlistenable because of a high end peak as well except for "Summertime" which they recorded in a standard "operatic" mode meaning accurately. EMI's engineers should be shot for it. London's and other engineers who have recorded her have never done this. Because of them, for pop music IMO, that studio stinks. If you're curious, I'll list the recording engineers.

[Guest Chartliner]

Here is an interesting article explaining the theory of the different types of main speakers and finally the Transmission Line speakers which as you have noted are making a comeback...old is becoming new again. I have also posted in the Library additions section.

Conclusion of the engineering article (below) on Transmission Line speaker design:"The Transmission line is an old design, but as it turns out, is almost a perfect system. The efficiency is better than bass-reflex enclosures, the accuracy is better than acoustic suspension, and the frequency response and linearity is better than all systems."

From:

http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~jglet...basstheory.html

Transimission Line (TL): Theory

Standard Subwoofer Enclosure Types

Because an Electrostatic Loudspeaker is incapable of producing low frequencies, a tradeoff must be made. Therefore, for a standard dynamic loudspeaker is used. It is then of paramount importance to design the enclosure for the dynamic subwoofer to be as accurate as possible to match the ESL. There are three main speaker enclosure types for the general consumer: acoustic suspension (sealed), bass reflex (vented), and compound (bandpass). Each one of these designs has variations but are similar enough to be ignored for our purposes. Each type of enclosure makes tradeoffs between efficiency, frequency response and accuracy.

By far, an acoustic suspension yields the very best accuracy. The air in the box acts like a spring, and counteracts the motion of the diaphragm. This helps to decrease the amount of over and under shoot giving the sealed enclosure very tight and defined bass. It also tends to protect the speaker from extreme excursion that would cause the cone or voice coil to "bottom out" or hit the frame, damaging the speaker. However, like any spring system, there is a resonance, and below this resonance, the output falls away at about 6db per octave. Also, due to the speaker having to fight the air spring or compliance of the box, the efficiency is low.

The bass reflex or vented enclosure has a greater efficiency. The back wave (sound from the back of the speaker diaphragm) that would normally be dissipated as heat in the enclosure is channeled out through a tuned vent to add with the front wave. In this way, the system is more efficient, but does not have the protection of the air spring. The frequency response tends to be not as flat as sealed. Furthermore, the tuned resonant system has very poor response below the resonance point and can be easily damaged, as the diaphragm decouples from the air and can bottom out with no air spring protection.

The compound or bandpass enclosure is composed of mounting the loudspeaker in a combination of vented and or sealed enclosures in front and behind. The most used is the 4th order bandpass enclosure, where one side of the speaker is in a sealed box and one side is in a vented box. This allows for a double tuned system that has very high efficiency in its pass-band range. However, like the vented box, anything outside of the range is severely attenuated. Also it is difficult to design properly and easy to abuse. The bandpass enclosure is not for audiophiles and tends to give the "one-note-thumper" sound of teenage car audio systems.

For more information on speaker enclosure types, please refer to The Subwoofer DIY Page v1.1

Transmission Line Basics

A Transmission Line (TL) is not like any of these three enclosure designs. The Transmission line is an old design, but as it turns out, is almost a perfect system. For example, the Bose Wave Radio uses a TL enclosure to produce its award winning sound. As the name implies, a transmission line is a long tube that expends from the back of the loudspeaker. By tapering the line, there is NO possible way in which sound can reflect back and forth and therefore standing waves and resonances common to standard speaker enclosures are eliminated. By eliminating back-wave reflections, the driver is also protected from having the back-wave re-radiate through the diaphragm, causing distortion and diaphragm breakup. The purpose of the transmission line is to eliminate the phase cancellation that would occur if the driver was in free air. Because of the length of the line, there is not enough time for air to travel through the line and cancel the front-wave. The magic of the system is what happens to the back-wave. The length of the line creates a tuned chamber much like an open ended pipe from a pipe organ. This causes a phase shift depending on the frequency and the length of the line. Through proper design, this causes the wave from the end of the TL to reinforce the front-wave at the frequencies where the front-wave begins to decrease due to increased air resistance at lower frequencies. Also, the tuned aspect of the TL strongly effects the fundamental resonance of the loudspeaker. It causes a very heavy dampening effect, which also helps to eliminate the overshoot and undershoot of the massive bass driver diaphragm. But this dampening is unlike the air spring of a sealed box and the diaphragm does not have to fight for motion. As a result, the efficiency is better than bass-reflex enclosures, the accuracy is better than acoustic suspension, and the frequency response and linearity is better than all systems.

The line length is usually tuned to be 1/4 of the fundamental resonance of the driver loudspeaker. The TL can be folded, or in other words curved. If stuffed properly with damping material such as wool, the actual length can be decreased due to the resistive effect of the material on the air. The construction and design of a TL bass system may be more difficult, but the result is a dynamic driver than can truly complement an electrostatic loudspeaker."

Russ

^

>>The AR9 as a stoick speaker apparently had phase problems

>and was considered pretty average<

>

>The above was the quote I was picking at. "apparently

>had. . . and was considered" are words used by someone

>repeating something they heard or read or whatever. I wasn't

>"flaming" at you.

>

>Comparing the 2006 top-dollar speakers of the world against

>the "mass produced" AR-9 is a little unfair, but

>okay. . . let's.

>

>The 9 isn't going to have the top-end extension. Compared to

>Revel's best it isn't going to have the best dispersion.

>Compared to a lot of speaker companies' best (and other ARs)

>it may not have the most uniform power signature. Were it

>the "perfect" speaker, it would still be in

>production.

>

>So could you and I design a better speaker than the AR-9 using

>the best of modern drivers? Probably not. I'm sure someone

>has.

>

>BUT, and this is something for you to consider strongly: AR

>did modify the original design of the AR-9 in later models

>(keeping their original intentions) to acheive some

>improvements where any shortcoming was found in the original 9

>design.

>

>Somehow the results (that I ever heard) were no-improvement at

>best and somehow unsatisfying or downright disappointing at

>worst. The well-liked and well reviewed 9LSi was simply no

>match at all for the 9 despite its measuring better and

>addressing some of the criticism levelled at the 9s. An

>at-volume playing of Berlioz's Requiem or a good pipe organ

>recording was all you needed to hear to know that whatever

>they fixed wasn't as important as what they goofed-up.

>

>So I didn't intend to get into this whole, childish

>"AR-9s RULE !" thing, but they definitely deserve

>more respect than "pretty average," which is,

>seriously, a pretty silly thing to say.

>

>Why weren't they on the list? Well, why was a KLH 9 on the

>list? It couldn't play very loud, had lousy bass, and to get

>any sort of "image quality" out of them people

>resorted to using four of them - not to mention that four of

>them was insanely expensive so almost nobody had four.

>

>Why is the Advent on the list? It didn't do bass as well as

>an AR-3/3a and it didn't do the middle as well as an AR-5 and

>neither of those do the middle as well as an AR-9 or AR-90.

>It didn't do the top as well as an Allison. Why's it there?

>

>Someone, somewhere said something close-to, "the fewer

>functions a device is required to perform, the better it can

>be made to perform those functions."

>

>I couldn't agree more. Some say the reason they quit making

>full-range speakers is because it was too difficult to build a

>single speaker where each driver is placed correctly in

>relation to the **room**. Personally, I think that's a

>cop-out. Cure one or two problems, create one or two more. .

>. "Gosh, building a full-range speaker is HARD. Let's

>not, and say we did."

>

>I, for one, am happy that TLs are coming back into vogue

>because it acknowledges what us "bass heads" have

>been saying for a long time: If it's missing everything below

>50Hz, it's not a good speaker no matter how marvelous is it

>above 50Hz. If it costs $3,000 and requires I spend another

>$5,000 on ultra-flexible subwoofers so I can spend my life

>trying to get them to "meld" correctly, not only is

>it not a good speaker, it's not even a solution to a problem.

>

>So, leave the 9 alone. Whatever its problems are that have

>been corrected over the years, the corrections have yielded

>problems of their own.

>

>Bret

[rrcrain]

I looked into the transmission line subwoofer a year or so ago and lost all interest once I realized the size of the beasts. The AR9 and AR90 are rather petite compared to a TL subwoofer capable of the same low frequencies and for my home, money and WAF, the AR9 is a hands down no brainer.

The 9 and 90 may well not be "the best" speaker on the market today, but they are both excellent speakers and hold their own extremely well against Canton's finest Carat series selling at $16,000 a pair. The Carat do some things better than the AR90s I own (and they should for $16,000), but they don't do enough to convince me they are worth the price.

Now, if I could only find a pair of 9's within driving distance to replace my 90s.

[Guest Chartliner]

Thanks for all your input, I do appreciate your contribution. I admit that I am not an expert in speaker technology, but trying to learn. I have gotten by with old EPI 100's and Sansui SPX7500's with 16" woofers for quite awhile.

What I do know about is fine music as I am a Jazz/Classical musician (piano and flute)and I have been collecting recordings for almost 40 years. A very interesting album is an old Count Basie album called Afrique featuring Jazz Flutist Hubert Laws with the Count's orchestra. BTW..if you like modern jazz check out www.live365.com and then listen to 'Intrecs' radio from Japan, they play some interesting stuff including quite abit of Pat Metheny and Lyle Mays. They also have some specialty stations that play only Jazz piano, or classical piano for example. It is the largest collection of internet radio stations.

Speaker technology is a difficult controversial field as to what is best. Once I get my AR2-X's restored I will have a taste of the AR sound and may some day aquire a set of AR-9's (Classics of course ).

It would be interesting for a speaker museum to have all the important speakers through-out the decades that a person could compare.

Russ

>Well, I've done my best to try to help you, but it's clearly

>too much of an uphill fight - de gustibus non disputandum

>est!