AR-5

[Guest banny]

Just curious...Why didn't the AR-5 last? And Could it be said that the 5 was more accurate than the 2ax but not as accurate as the 3a? I'm only asking because I'm thinking about bidding on a rebuilt pair that the owner says is "just like the 3a, only it couldn't reach the 1/3 octave lower that the 3a could". I own a pair of 2ax's that was handed down to me from a father in law. They needed new surrounds so I drove them over to AB Tech for on "oil change and tune up", Carlos took care of me and I love their sound. (I have been guilty of dancing by myself in the living room when no one is home). Sorry...back to the original subject, would the 5 be the next step up, without paying for the price of 3a's which seem to be getting a little silly on ebay?

Thanks in advance for answering...(My first post).

[Steve F]

Dear Banny,

Great question and welcome to the Forum. I'll re-post below a 2ax-vs-5 post of mine from Sept 2005. I think the 5 is a great speaker and if you enjoy them, keep them.

Timeline-wise, the 3a came out in late '67, the 5 roughly a year later. The 1st-generation "old" 2ax came out in '64, and the 2nd-generation "new" 2ax came out in1970.

Herewith, then, is my post from last September:

"This is an interesting question. A speaker’s performance is always more than just what the "numbers" would suggest, as the interaction of different driver/crossover combinations and the psychoacoustic effect of subtly different system balances play a significant role in the overall perception of a speaker’s character.

The 3a and 5 are perfect examples of this. With essentially "identical" midranges and tweeters, the only difference between the two ‘should’ be that the 3a goes deeper. But this is clearly not the case. With its somewhat lighter overall bass balance, the 5 takes on what many listeners consider to be a different character than the 3a, losing that slightly thick, heavy feel and giving the 5 a somewhat more athletic, light-on-its-feet performance. The 5 also loses that authoritative, almost magisterial command that the 3a has, and becomes, in direct comparison, merely a very good medium-sized speaker, while the 3a is the master of its domain.

So with this as a backdrop, and the reality of the unpredictability of performance based on numbers, here’s my take on the new 2ax vs. the 5. (A friend of mine had 5’s and we compared my 2ax’s to his 5’s side-by-side on many occasions.)

Both speakers had the same tweeter and the same woofer, in exactly the same cabinet. The ‘only" differences were the 5 used the 8-ohm version of the 1 1/2" dome mid crossing over at 650 Hz (later 550 Hz), while the 2ax used the 3 1/2" mid with the yellow fiber covering and metal mesh, crossing over at 1400 Hz. Both speakers crossed over from their mids to the 3/4" dome at 5000 Hz.

"Numbers" would have predicted that the main differences were that the 5 had a little more mid detail and sounded a little less "boxy" since the mid dispersion was somewhat better. The highs and lows would have been the same.

However, to my ears, it was a little more than just that. The 5, by virtue of the 1 1/2" dome mid’s truly superb performance, had an overall refinement and accuracy to its sound that the 2ax didn’t have. Now, I’ve been on record as saying that in my opinion, the 2ax was the best overall price-to-performance model in the Classic lineup, and I still feel that way. But the impression I got when listening to the 5 compared to the 2ax was that one speaker was just in a slightly different category of refinement than the other. Listening to the 2ax, even without comparing it to something else, I was aware of its limitations. Listening to the 5, without comparing directly to something better, I wasn’t immediately aware of its limitations. Over the frequency range it covered, the 5 did so about as well as could be done in 1971. The same could not be said of the 2ax.

Was the 5 worth the extra 100 bucks a pair compared to the 2ax? Sure. But buyer psychology being what it was, most customers adopted the "Hey, in for a penny, in for a pound" attitude and opted for the 3a if they were going to buy something better than the 2ax. The 5’s sales were never that spectacular."

Steve F.

[dynaco_dan]

An excellent commentary, Steve, first rate.

[Guest denmarkdrivers]

yeah steve great post you tought me a lot about the AR line. Rare you can hear someones side by side opinions, first rate post i agree.

[Guest Americain]

Steve, this is a truly detailed and intelligent analysis of what I feel are some of the finest speakers out there. Nice going.