Which AR's are worth the investment?

[dingus]

i have owned a pair of AR-9's for a little more than a year now. according to the original owner (who i have every reason to believe) all the drivers were completly gone over by a professional speaker tech and all the foams were replaced, about 3 years prior to my purchase of them. they have performed flawlessly for me since day one.

i have owned the Large Advent for just under a year and refoamed the woofers myself. they too have performed flawlessly and i couldnt be happier with them.

a very good friend of mine has a pair of Vandersteen 2c's which i listen to on a regular basis. i like them a great deal and would be very happy with them.

i heard the B&W Nautilus ("racing snails") about a month after i aquired my AR-9's. without reservation, i can tell you that these are the finest sounding speakers i've had the pleasure of hearing.

i dont have an issue with the Advent, Vandersteen or the Nautilus making the top 40yr list, but i do think the AR-9's is one of the most overlooked and undervalued speakers out there. here's my take on how the AR-9 stacks up against these 3 list makers.

Large Advent vs the AR-9. its no contest, the Large Advent cannot compete with the 9 in any way and does not begin to approach the 9 in terms of sound quality in any area. i do think the Advent is deserving to be on the list because of what it represented for its time, in terms of value and by how it was developed.

Vandersteen 2c vs the AR-9. though we have not conducted side by side A/B listening tests, my good friend and i came to the same conclusion; these are both very good speakers and are very comparable. both speakers do everything very well but the 9's get the overall edge due to their superior low end.

B&W Nautilus vs the AR-9. again no contest, to my ears, the Nautilus did everything better across the board. the gap isnt as stark as when comparing the Advents to the 9's, but it was obvious to me. consider the Nautilus go for $40,000 retail (which doesnt include the required amplification which i beleive is another $80,000 or so) and $1,800 retail for a pair of AR-9's, or $1500 for a pair of Vanersteen 2c's, i think the latter 2 are easily a better speaker in terms of value.

yeah i think the AR-9 should have made the list, but on the used market you can get a pair of 9's for no more, and usually less, than a pair Vandersteen 2's, and the 9's are a more complete speaker. off the list they continue to be overlooked, but also continue to be one of the most undervalued and therefore best buys you can get in a speaker today.

[tysontom]

>

>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.

AR did not abandon the earlier (four-bolt) woofer style in the AR-2x because of “problems in the midrange.” There were no problems whatsoever with the earlier woofer. It was quite uniform throughout its operating range, and there were never any "mid-range" issues. The cone material was very pliable and helped the driver to maintain smooth response up to its crossover. The magnet was changed for a variety of reasons, but mostly because of the cost of the Alnico pole-piece magnet, and because ferrite magnets were becoming a cost-effective method of getting the desired magnetic strength. Pole-piece magnets, in which the voice coil surrounds the magnet itself, are also susceptible to demagnetization under very high peak power, another reason for going to the ferrite-style magnet.

--Tom Tyson

[Guest Chartliner]

Thanks for the information Tom, from what you say it would therefore be quite acceptable for me to repair the woofers (replace the foam surrounds) rather than replace them. I don't know why the other site (which I cannot find now) said that the 'pole-piece magnet' style woofer had problems with the mid-range, perhaps they were confused about the high power issue. I just remember that it was a very authoritive site with photos of the old and new woofers.

BTW...I also have a pair of Sansui SP7500X speakers with 16" woofers, these speakers are probably almost 40 years old, the drivers have creased paper cones with a coat of shiny varnish or something (no foam or rubber), these speakers are still working well, seems like that design is the better design..lasts forever, but perhaps the foam or rubber gives better acousitcs? The Sansui's give out a pretty big sound though, but dated compared to Totem or other modern units.

Everyone here has convinced me that the AR-9 is a fine machine and someday I hope to get a pair.

Russ

>>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.

>

>AR did not abandon the earlier (four-bolt) woofer style in the

>AR-2x because of “problems in the midrange.” There were no

>problems whatsoever with the earlier woofer. It was quite

>uniform throughout its operating range, and there were never

>any "mid-range" issues. The cone material was very

>pliable and helped the driver to maintain smooth response up

>to its crossover. The magnet was changed for a variety of

>reasons, but mostly because of the cost of the Alnico

>pole-piece magnet, and because ferrite magnets were becoming a

>cost-effective method of getting the desired magnetic

>strength. Pole-piece magnets, in which the voice coil

>surrounds the magnet itself, are also susceptible to

>demagnetization under very high peak power, another reason for

>going to the ferrite-style magnet.

>

>--Tom Tyson

[tysontom]

>Thanks for the information Tom, from what you say it would

>therefore be quite acceptable for me to repair the woofers

>(replace the foam surrounds) rather than replace them. I don't

>know why the other site (which I cannot find now) said that

>the 'pole-piece magnet' style woofer had problems with the

>mid-range, perhaps they were confused about the high power

>issue. I just remember that it was a very authoritive site

>with photos of the old and new woofers.

That is what I would do. If the woofers are functional, and the voice coils don't rub, and so forth, then by replacing the surround you should get very good results. Actually, the early pole-piece woofers were extremely compliant and produced excellent, low-distortion bass. The whole idea is to get flat response with low distortion, and the AR-2x with that woofer is capable of doing a very good job.

>

>BTW...I also have a pair of Sansui SP7500X speakers with

>16" woofers, these speakers are probably almost 40 years

>old, the drivers have creased paper cones with a coat of shiny

>varnish or something (no foam or rubber), these speakers are

>still working well, seems like that design is the better

>design..lasts forever, but perhaps the foam or rubber gives

>better acousitcs? The Sansui's give out a pretty big sound

>though, but dated compared to Totem or other modern units.

>

The Sansui 16-inch woofer most likely has a corrugated or "pleated" surround, from what you describe. This type of surround was used for many years before the half-round type came into being. Even though the pleated version will last almost indefinitely (the first AR-1s had this type surround) and do not deteriorate and disintegrate over time (they do begin to leak air after awhile), these surrounds are not as linear as the half-round type and introduce more distortion by "binding" sooner than the half-round versions.

>Everyone here has convinced me that the AR-9 is a fine machine

>and someday I hope to get a pair.

>

Russ, the AR-9 is not perfect, but it is nevertheless an outstanding loudspeaker, capable of holding its own against just about any loudspeaker out there. A few speakers might be able to outpoint it in one or two categories, but *overall* the performance of this speaker is unsurpassed as far as I can tell. It is definitely in the top rung of speakers in terms of low-distortion, low-frequency reproduction, and it has an uncanny ability to project good "imaging" for those who like that characteristic, all the while providing excellent dispersion at all frequencies. It is impressively "realistic" sounding, if that is an acceptible description! The AR-9's performance is more focused than the extremely wide dispersion and spacious sound of an AR-LST; and with the AR-9, Acoustic Research began its departure from the principle of uniform integrated-power response -- at all expense -- as had been the AR engineering "mantra" for many years. The AR-9 was one of the first computer-designed AR loudspeakers (AR had a big DEC computer I believe), and it represented a culmination of the creative genius of Acoustic Research product engineering over a nearly three-decade period. Tim Holl and his men hovered over the design of this loudspeaker for a long time, and they produced one of the best designs ever -- a sort of "timeless" engineering feat.

--Tom Tyson

[Guest Chartliner]

Good Stuff, thanks again. BTW... an interesting piece of trivia is that Sansui means Mountain Stream in Japanese and Chinese, in recent years the Chinese copied the Japanese and started up a speaker company called Mountain Forest (in Chinese-Mandarin), given that forests are usually pretty quiet it is a funny name.

Russ

>>Thanks for the information Tom, from what you say it

>would

>>therefore be quite acceptable for me to repair the

>woofers

>>(replace the foam surrounds) rather than replace them. I

>don't

>>know why the other site (which I cannot find now) said

>that

>>the 'pole-piece magnet' style woofer had problems with

>the

>>mid-range, perhaps they were confused about the high

>power

>>issue. I just remember that it was a very authoritive

>site

>>with photos of the old and new woofers.

>

>That is what I would do. If the woofers are functional, and

>the voice coils don't rub, and so forth, then by replacing the

>surround you should get very good results. Actually, the

>early pole-piece woofers were extremely compliant and produced

>excellent, low-distortion bass. The whole idea is to get flat

>response with low distortion, and the AR-2x with that woofer

>is capable of doing a very good job.

>

>>

>>BTW...I also have a pair of Sansui SP7500X speakers with

>>16" woofers, these speakers are probably almost 40

>years

>>old, the drivers have creased paper cones with a coat of

>shiny

>>varnish or something (no foam or rubber), these speakers

>are

>>still working well, seems like that design is the better

>>design..lasts forever, but perhaps the foam or rubber

>gives

>>better acousitcs? The Sansui's give out a pretty big

>sound

>>though, but dated compared to Totem or other modern

>units.

>>

>

>The Sansui 16-inch woofer most likely has a corrugated or

>"pleated" surround, from what you describe. This

>type of surround was used for many years before the half-round

>type came into being. Even though the pleated version will

>last almost indefinitely (the first AR-1s had this type

>surround) and do not deteriorate and disintegrate over time

>(they do begin to leak air after awhile), these surrounds are

>not as linear as the half-round type and introduce more

>distortion by "binding" sooner than the half-round

>versions.

>

>>Everyone here has convinced me that the AR-9 is a fine

>machine

>>and someday I hope to get a pair.

>>

>

>Russ, the AR-9 is not perfect, but it is nevertheless an

>outstanding loudspeaker, capable of holding its own against

>just about any loudspeaker out there. A few speakers might be

>able to outpoint it in one or two categories, but *overall*

>the performance of this speaker is unsurpassed as far as I can

>tell. It is definitely in the top rung of speakers in terms

>of low-distortion, low-frequency reproduction, and it has an

>uncanny ability to project good "imaging" for those

>who like that characteristic, all the while providing

>excellent dispersion at all frequencies. It is impressively

>"realistic" sounding, if that is an acceptible

>description! The AR-9's performance is more focused than the

>extremely wide dispersion and spacious sound of an AR-LST; and

>with the AR-9, Acoustic Research began its departure from the

>principle of uniform integrated-power response -- at all

>expense -- as had been the AR engineering "mantra"

>for many years. The AR-9 was one of the first

>computer-designed AR loudspeakers (AR had a big DEC computer I

>believe), and it represented a culmination of the creative

>genius of Acoustic Research product engineering over a nearly

>three-decade period. Tim Holl and his men hovered over the

>design of this loudspeaker for a long time, and they produced

>one of the best designs ever -- a sort of "timeless"

>engineering feat.

>

>--Tom Tyson

>

>