Jump to content

any reason to mess with AR3a?


Guest centaurus

Recommended Posts

Guest centaurus

i can't explain why I've always had a curiosity with AR3a's. i inquired about a pair in the San Francisco bay area for $40. she responded, but i think she must have sold them for more than asking. and i couldn't pick up until the weekend.

i used to have a pair of AR3 for a while. they were fun. lots of bass (they were on AR criss-cross stands), but ho-hum mids and highs. I've heard lots of people talk smack about the AR3a as well, but it doesn't seem to deter me from wanting to hear a pair, especially in my system.

the reason for the sunject header is i already have a pair of the following:

- KEF 104/2

- Thiel 03A

- KEF Calinda

- Janszen Z-200

is there anything the AR3a would contribute or do better (other than deeper bass) beyond the speaker collection i already have? amps are McIntosh MC60 and Precision Fidelity C4 preamp for reference.

thanks,

Robby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robby, while answering your question, I am listening to my AR-3a’s. I’ve had them over 30 years, but they’ve never sounded so good.

Many folks feel the Eastern (New England) sound is rather “laid back” compared to West Coast speaker systems. My 3a’s really fit that description until I recently bi-amped them. That brought them “alive” so in addition to terrific bass I now have bright, clear high frequencies.

Robby, bi-amping is not for everyone and can be troublesome with the AR-3a’s. All I can say is that I’ll never return to a single amp on the 3a’s.

Regards,

Jerry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, Robby -

Your loudspeaker collection seems to show a preference for a detailed midrange, and perhaps not much interest in bass extension, which is certainly not uncommon in today's audiophile community. And the MC60 is probably a fine match for most of your speakers, although I'd guess the Calinda's B200 sounds a little tubby with the Mac.

That said, the 3a is going to have a more pronounced "personality" than your other speakers - it'll go much lower, probably giving the resultant overall sound more body than you're used to, or prefer.

For 40 bux a pair, it's a shame that you missed out, though!

If you ever have the chance, take a listen to the AR-90, which will provide decent bass extension (certainly more than your current speakers), a vertically-aligned mid/upper-mid/tweeter arrangement, and exceptional imaging & HF extension for a 30 year-old design. The AR-9 is more of the same, but with even more low-end capability, which is better-suited to a large room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robby,

The AR-3a will bring a whole new dimension to your collection besides acoustic suspension bass response. AR's are from the wide-dispersion, far field school, as opposed to the near field "imaging school." I would search the old forum archives, as a ton has been written here on the subject.

At the end of the day, no matter how much audiophile nonsense you may have read, the AR's were the only speakers ever compared to a live source in public. AR did tons of live vs. recorded demonstrations with AR-3a's in the 60's and 70's. A string quartet or something like that would play then pretend to play. Even seasoned critics could not detect all the changeovers!

The AR-3a should have superior acoustic power response than the other speakers you have mentioned. This is defined as the total acoustic energy placed in to a given listening envionment. The midrange and tweeter should provide better off-axis performance, thus better dispersion and acoustic power response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more thing, you mentioned that the AR-3(predesessor to the 3a) had ho-hum highs. What people often fail to considder when they refer to the so called New England sound as laid back, is that real music is not as bright as a typical loudspeaker in the home. This begs the question of whether you want "bright" or accurate ?

In any case, the AR-3a has an improved high end over the AR-3. It is a more efficient tweeter with better off-axis performance.

Get those 3a's !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robby:

IMO the comments made by AR-Pro and Brad are right on. I do not agree that bi-amping an AR-3a is in any way needed for that speaker to reproduce the mid and high ranges with clarity and accuracy. I think most listeners have found it necessary to drive it with an amplifier of suitable power, say, 200 W/ch into 4 Ohms at very low distortion, and perhaps to replace the mid- and high-range crossover capacitors with audio-quality polypropylene capacitors. The AR-3a, speaker terminals, as Tom Tyson has cautioned in another post, do not permit isolation of the woofer and mid/hi drivers. One should read his comments before considering such a risk.

On the other hand, the AR-3a Limited (the Asian version of the AR-3a) was designed for bi-amping. However, they are such a great sounding speakers with one amplifier that I have never been moved to tinker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>At the end of the day, no matter how much audiophile nonsense

>you may have read, the AR's were the only speakers ever

>compared to a live source in public. AR did tons of live vs.

>recorded demonstrations with AR-3a's in the 60's and 70's. A

>string quartet or something like that would play then pretend

>to play. Even seasoned critics could not detect all the

>changeovers!

Paul Klipsch did the same thing (CDs of the tapes that Paul Klipsch recorded of these performances may soon be available!). Not taking anything away from AR, and it says tons about their form-factor, but the same dedication to reproducing live music was thriving in Hope as well as Cambridge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I inquired about the $40 AR 3as as well but didn't hear from her/him. I must have responded too late. I've always wanted to hear AR 3as in my own system and almost had the chance. I like the darker AR sound; it sounds more like music to me than the brighter more etched sound of many contemporary "audiophile" speakers. My day will come.

>i can't explain why I've always had a curiosity with AR3a's.

>i inquired about a pair in the San Francisco bay area for $40.

>she responded, but i think she must have sold them for more

>than asking. and i couldn't pick up until the weekend.

>

>i used to have a pair of AR3 for a while. they were fun. lots

>of bass (they were on AR criss-cross stands), but ho-hum mids

>and highs. I've heard lots of people talk smack about the AR3a

>as well, but it doesn't seem to deter me from wanting to hear

>a pair, especially in my system.

>

>the reason for the sunject header is i already have a pair of

>the following:

>

>- KEF 104/2

>- Thiel 03A

>- KEF Calinda

>- Janszen Z-200

>

>is there anything the AR3a would contribute or do better

>(other than deeper bass) beyond the speaker collection i

>already have? amps are McIntosh MC60 and Precision Fidelity C4

>preamp for reference.

>

>thanks,

>Robby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest SherwoodFool

Hi,

By your list of speakers, you might have a preference for what used to be called a "forward sound". AR's have always been a little reticent(except for bass with appropriate power). You have to like this kind of sound.IMHO,I am convinced that there is dif btwn sealed boxes & ported systems most prevalent now. There are virtually no sealed boxes(~2 cu ft) like the AR's(3,2,5) produced any more. Ten years ago, I got Yamaha 636's(3 way,8in woofer like AR-4's) just to keep memory. They are shielded & little bit brighter but still well laid back. But if you get 3a's for 40 bucks, I will buy from you seight unseen.

BTW, back in the day, there were highly regrded so called AR-3a equivalents like the Large Advent,KLH-4,5,and my favorite,the Yamaha NS-690.

Regards,

SherwoodFool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many good reasons to "mess" with AR3a. First of all, it is a great speaker. In its day, it was the most accurate speaker some very determined and experienced speaker builders with considerable resources knew how to make and much of the audio world agreed they could find no better. Accuracy of musical reproduction doesn't change with time, fads do. And while its sound may sound different from many more modern speakers, its difference from actual music to whatever degree it existed hasn't changed at all except for that caused by normal aging of its components (which is probably not all that great and minimal when restored.) It was also the reference standard for many professional musicians, serious concert goers, record collectors, recording studios, laboratories and others needing a high accuracy loudspeaker system. Its designers didn't cater to personal preferences, they catered to achieving the most accurate sound reproduction possible.

If I had a pair (I have other AR speakers and other manufacturer's speakers as well) I'd personally would do what I have done with all of them and that is to apply the knowledge I have gained from my own experimentation. Since I am of the opinion that to be accurate ALL speakers should sound the same, I'd improve their high frequency dispersion even further with additional indirect firing tweeter arrays and revoice them with an equalizer. I assure you, when speakers of any manufacture deliver both flat on axis and near on axis frequency response and flat total energy transfer to the listener, they are anything but laid back.

As for Klipshorn, while I admire Mr. Klipsch's inventiveness at manufacturing a most ingenious and efficient loudspeaker system and forcing a company as resourceful as JBL to sit up, take notice, and copy his design (immitation is the sincerest form of flattery) I don't think most careful listeners would consider Klipschorn or its competitor the JBL Sheffield to be a high accuracy speaker for the home. I personally don't consider it a serious competitor for AR3a and it certainly cannot compare to AR3a's ability to reproduce the lowest octave of sound.

At $40 for a pair, regardless of its conditon, IMO it was being given away....as so much great old equipment people don't remember or know about is. Personally, I'd have grabbed it if I had the chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading all the response posts to yours (at least to date), something's come to mind that I'd like to share regarding the 'magic' sound of the AR3a that so many love.

The sound you hear from a speaker is the result of the transfer of electrical energy to mechanical energy. IMHO, the totality of the sound is made up of perhaps 90% materials of construction which transmit the sound (i.e. the drivers, box and stuffing makup) and 10% crossover parts. Given the 3a crossover design as it exists, I bet one could make a very close sounding speaker to the original 3a if they could obtain original woofers, tweeters and mids and construct a crossover made up of comparable valued and connected modern components.

Simply duplicating the box geometry with MDF or baltic birch plywood could get the sound pretty close.

Has anyone tried this?

Remember, it's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest centaurus

wow,

thanks for all the input!

i was so PISSED! i told the lady i would pick them up sight unseen this Saturday (too busy during the work week). i PROMISED to buy them even if they turned out to be rat traps. regardless she sold them...

and it gets BETTER! i saw the bastards on eBay today! i emailed her about this and she responded saying she saw it too. she apologized and admitted she should have just waited for me to come and get them. she asked the guy specifically if he was just going to flip them. he of course said no. hey, did you notice that the cone was replaced on the left speaker (she said this in the ad)? the guy just said new surrounds...

anyway, yes i do like forward and sultry mids. i used to have bozak 302A Urbans for about 2 years as my main speakers. i liked them a lot but when we moved to a smaller place, they imaged 3 feet behind the couch in the kitchen! not to mention the B200Y tweeters are not all that extended beyond 12kHz. i found myself missing detailed high frequencies as previous to that, i had a pair of apogee centaur minor ribbon hybrids. but the MC60's could never drive those things adequately. my old adcom GFA-5500 could, but i'm a vintage tube guy at eard so i sold the adcom.

so i traded them for the KEF 104/2 which was a good deal from a monetary sense at least. the 104/2 are arguably the best design Raymond Cooke ever made. i have yet to hear them in all their glory. unbenounst to the owner (they were his dad's), the tweeters had very little output due to the hardening of the ferro-fluid over time. common with the T33. long story short, kef doesn't make new ones, their suggested replacement are $240/pair and are not very good. all used T33 would have the same problem to varying degrees.

alot of people tried to help, but in the end, i was left to my own devices to find a suitable replacement. after some trial and error (the space for the tweeters is very odd and it's mounted behind the baffle), i found that a pair of Vifa MG27 which are 4 ohm at 93.5db would fit the bill (T33 is 4ohms at 93db). i just got them on friday so hope to have them in soon. oh yes, and the guy did give me the money to buy new tweeters. nice chap.

we'll see, I'm sure the crossover had some sort of phase correction for the T33 that the Vifas probably don't need. but I'm pretty confident the vifas are probably better than the T33 anyway.

The Calindas are one of my all-time favorites. i have never heard cone speakers image like these. like big LS3/5A.

the Thiels were $60 off craigslist. ratty veneer and mids needed new surrounds, but the woofers were 5 year old thiel models. got new surrounds done at thiel for FREE (great company!). they are also very impressive with far smoother HF response than the T27 in the Calindas. not quite as forward in the mids though. image like a mofo.

The Janszen Z-200 are fairly rare (circa 1958). janszen cabinet with a 250B woofer per side plus the 130U 4 panel ESL array). sound incredible as well. the woofer is wierd. it's squared off like an AR3 woofer (11 inch as well). one day I'd like to try a real AR woofer as the 250B does not extend much below 40Hz (if that). i would find some Styrofoam blocks of some sort to get the VAS to 1.7 cubic feet of course.

that's about it. hey, if anyone is in the SF bay are and wants to bring over their AR speakers for comparison. i'm cool with that ;-)

system is as follows:

McIntosh MC60 tube monoblocks

Precision Fidelity C4 preamp (using a friend's MFA Magus C right now)

Theta DSPro GEN III DAC

Theta Data II transport

borrowed Technics SP15/SME 3009MKII/ADC XLM MKII

B&W ASW-500 sub

all those damn speakers ;-)

see ya,

Robby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...