Impact of tweeter pot removal on AR-3a's

[tysontom]

>First off, when I say "better transient response", that is far, far >more related to the mid driver and tweeter. What I think is >happening is that amps WITHOUT the current drain of the woofer are >just unencumbered and can “roll with the punches better”.

>

>Tom, in all honesty I can hear the difference, but I am NOT sure >what’s going on.

>

>So, Tom, there can be no more disputes. It’s clearly different! The >measurements don’t lie.

Jerry, I think you sincerely believe that bi-amping improves the sound of your AR-3as, and it should probably stay at that. Nonetheless, you should avoid mixing science with emotion. What might “sound” better to you does not imply actual measurable speaker improvement. Unless you have before-and-after frequency-response and the transient-response (tone-burst images) that demonstrate better performance response of the speaker when bi-amped vs. the normal way, then it is simply a subjective observation on your part. We should also make it clear that bi-amping -- rightly or wrongly -- has no affect whatsoever on the transient response of the AR-3a. It obviously can affect the spectral balance of the speaker, and thus the speaker can sound different from the conventional method of amplifier connection.

--Tom Tyson

[ar_pro]

Dear Jerry,

Your speakers are *not* biamplified!

[onplane]

>

>

>Dear Jerry,

>Your speakers are *not* biamplified!

>

>

Dear ar-pro,

You should qualify statements like this as your impression. It's clearly NOT AR's!

AR specifically recommended against active bi-amping and had experienced satisfactory results with passive bi-amping. Try reading the attached memo.

Unless you have a ton fairly sophisticated equipment your active arrangement has most likely screwed up the frequency response.

At least the frequency shaping circuits in my AR’s are intact and I verified that they are working.

Regards,

Jerry

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/1789.jpg

[onplane]

>Jerry, I think you sincerely believe that bi-amping improves

>the sound of your AR-3as, and it should probably stay at that.

> Nonetheless, you should avoid mixing science with emotion.

>What might “sound” better to you does not imply actual

>measurable speaker improvement. Unless you have

>before-and-after frequency-response and the transient-response

>(tone-burst images) that demonstrate better performance

>response of the speaker when bi-amped vs. the normal way, then

>it is simply a subjective observation on your part. We should

>also make it clear that bi-amping -- rightly or wrongly -- has

>no affect whatsoever on the transient response of the AR-3a.

>It obviously can affect the spectral balance of the speaker,

>and thus the speaker can sound different from the conventional

>method of amplifier connection.

>

>--Tom Tyson

Hi, Tom!

Please remember Tom all of my arguments for transient response improvement had nothing what-so-ever to do with the speakers. Those arguments centered around the practical limits of amplifiers.

Tom, please bear with me for a minute.

If I can prove that the magnitude of short burst of high frequency is HIGHER on an amp under NO load than an amp under a severe load, would you agree that speakers would response to that higher magnitude signal?

I don’t even need speakers to do this test, just a severe load (large magnitude low frequency signal).

Switching subjects and returning to your statement, “…that bi-amping -- rightly or wrongly – has no affect whatsoever on the transient response of the AR-3a.”

I would tend to agree with your statement for passive bi-amping (with the passive components still intact as in my situation). If someone removed those passive components, however, and replaced with an active network prior to the power amp, it would NOT be so clear. I say this because there is no signal path to the mid driver that does not go through an inductor. Inductors, as we know, when first presented with a “spike” appear as an open circuit.

In short, with the inductors removed it’s no longer clear that transient response will remain exactly the same and I’m wondering how you can be so certain that there would be NO difference. Tom, have you ever measured transient response with the inductors and the cap removed?

Regards,

Jerry

[ar_pro]

Hi, Jerry -

"AR specifically recommended against active bi-amping and had experienced satisfactory results with passive bi-amping. Try reading the attached memo."

Look closely, and you'll see that your attached memo refers to the AR-90, and not the AR-9, which came factory-approved, and capable of biamplification.

The "ton of fairly sophisticated equipment" that we use to vertically biamplify our AR-9 loudspeakers consists of a pair of identical McIntosh power amplifiers, and a Mac preamp. This has always seemed a pretty simple setup - who knew it was so sophisticated! I hope it's not screwing up the frequency response!

Sorry, Jerry, your speakers are *not* biamplified - yours' is a weird concoction of shelved tone controls and dissimilar amplifiers, all powering into a passive crossover that was *never* designed to be so connected.

But godspeed - you'll receive no further critique from this source...best of luck with everything!

[onplane]

Soundminded, below is your statement relative to high frequencies:

"I have to disagree. Most speakers use a 1" dome tweeter which typically starts falling off rapidly above around 12Khz off axis. By 30 to 45 degrees off axis, most are off arond 8 to 10 db at 15 khz with respect to its on axis repsonse. To appreciate just what this polar response difference in HF and mid and low F means, listen to a bookshelf speaker outside and walk around it. Behind it you will hear it fairly loudly except you will hear NO hf sounds whatsoever. As move around it and you get closer and closer to being on axis, notice how much clearer it sounds."

Ok, but most of us don't listen outside. I know we get a ton of high frequency signals "bounced" to us and I know from listen to cd's in my car. There is no speaker pointed at me at all! Two are pointed directly at the windshield, two at my feet and then two somewhere in the backseat, yet I still hear the high frequencies.

I believe the same dynamics applies in most listening rooms. That is, there are walls, floors, ceilings, furniture etc. all of which reflect high frequency sound.

“By putting a capacitor in parallel with the direct firing tweeter, its high end is rolled off compared to the indirect firing tweeters, then by boosting the treble control, it is flat again and the indirect tweeters have a rising treble output.”

I should have done the math first. Your 1 mfd isn’t going to harm anything or do much for than matter. At 10KHz it’s impedance is 16 ohms, 15KHz = 10.6 ohms and finally at 20KHz = 8 ohms. If the tweeter is 3.2 ohms, most of the current will still be flowing through the tweeter even at 20KHz.

Regards,

Jerry

[onplane]

>

>Jerry, thanks for your input,

>

>First off my Yamaha is not a multi-media reciever, it is a

>1983 Stero reciever (R700) which was originally a 50 watts per

>side but after I dropped it while trying to get it's digital

>synthysizer tuner to lock on ( a chronic problem on some

>distant stations when getting a feed from cable) it died and I

>had Yamaha fix it but they could only get the more powerful 70

>watts per side chips for it.(my stereo salesman that I bought

>it from recommended I pour beer into it next time it

>misbehaved at the time, but it has been good for over a

>decade now.

Russ, certainly 70 watt chips are better than 50 watt chips from a protection standpoint, but that won't change the power output of your amps. Unless they changed the supply transformer, the bridge rectifier and the filter caps, you still have a 50 watt amp. The 70 watt chips are capable of handling more current and a higher supply voltage, but neither will happen unless the other components were changed as well.

>Anyways it is a good reciever with very low total

>harmonic distortion, it has served me well for a quarter

>century and even running the AR2X's by themselves on channel A

>they still sound exactly the same as when the Sansui's are

>hooked up to B with the AR's, so this would argue against the

>theory that they are starved for power, the Yamaha has lots of

>power, even when listening to them loud you would not want to

>go above about 2.5 or 3 on the volume knob.

Russ, you have a 50 watt amp powering two sets of speakers and one is a set of AR's. With all due respect, I really, really don't like this. The woofer in the AR's needs large doses of current.

Contrast this with my setup where I have two amps powering a single set of AR-3a's:

1. woofer amp - 125 wpc @ 8 ohms - 170 wpc @ 4 ohms

2. mid/tweeter amp - 30 wpc @ 8 ohms - 40 wpc @ 4 ohms

>snip - "perform the “Jerry Mod” on the pots. That

>>is, cut the wires to the wipers and solder to the top of

>the

>>pots."

>

>Q:What are the "wipers"?

>

The wipers are the part of the pot that turns with the shaft. This is the part that corrodes and as a result we don't get adaquate voltage sent to the mid/tweeter.

>No doubt I have broken many rules but that does not stop me

>from enjoying many fine pieces of music from Keith Jarrett,

>Chic Corea to Bach to the Beatles etc.

>

>The Sansui's were Japan's top speaker back in the late 70's I

>have been told, Sansui is now gone as a company. What I like

>about them is the cloth surrounds which remain in good shape

>after 30 years unlike the foams on AR's which I replaced

>myself. The Ar's have a much bigger sound than my old EPI

>100's.

>

>I realize that this system I have put together is not a high

>end stereo but it's a pretty good mid range system and perhaps

>after doing some further tweaking I can pull those mids and

>highs out better.

>

>Russ

Russ, I'd recommend the mod where you solder the wires going to the wiper to the top of the pot. This ought to bring the mid/tweeter to life. Alternatively, if you really, really want to hear it, you can cut both leads and solder together. This will give you approximatley another 1.5 db on the mid/tweeter.

We want you to get more out of that high quality driver, Russ, so that you can turn off the speaker in your TV.

Finally, I'd still recommend another small amp for the Sansui's. You can get amps real cheap today on ebay and the Sansui's don't need a big amp. 30 watts is fine.

Regards,

Jerry

[soundminded]

"Ok, but most of us don't listen outside. I know we get a ton of high frequency signals "bounced" to us and I know from listen to cd's in my car. There is no speaker pointed at me at all! Two are pointed directly at the windshield, two at my feet and then two somewhere in the backseat, yet I still hear the high frequencies.

I believe the same dynamics applies in most listening rooms. That is, there are walls, floors, ceilings, furniture etc. all of which reflect high frequency sound."

Perhaps I should have been a little more explicit. My example of listening outside was merely to illustrate how rapidly HF falls off as you go off axis, it's just a way to demonstrate that to yourself, I'm not suggesting anyone should listen to them outdoors. It's the closest most people can get to an anechoic chamber, especially if there are no buildings close by.

Yes there are a lot of reflections in cars. Hard surfaces like windshields do make excellent reflectors and there are many surfaces very close to the speaker giving the opportunity for early multiple reflections. But in most rooms I've listened to recorded music in, there is no labyrinth like path for most of the sound to travel before it reaches me. Also I neglected to say that I am referring to HF reflections which come from the same general direction of the speaker and very shortly after the direct sound with comparable delay to corresponding mid and low frequency early reflections from the same direction. This is where the tweeter's tendency to beam makes a telling difference. As I explained, my experience is that when all of the hf energy comes from a single direction such as one tweeter, there is a greater tendency for it to sound unnaturally shrill but when the same amount of energy arrives at the listener from multiple directions it sound less shrill and more "musical." BTW, this also explains how a live end/dead end room can help. The walls behind and to the side of the speakers are covered with sound absorbant material to create the dead end. Since there is little indirect energy at Hf, this material soaks up mostly middle and low freqeuncy energy flattening the FR of the total energy reaching the listener from the front of the room. The walls behind the listener are made of hard material. This reflects all energy including Hf energy back at the listener from behind him. This can help but is more difficult, more expensive, and not usually as effective as my method...IMO.

[onplane]

>Hi, Jerry -

>

>The "ton of fairly sophisticated equipment" that we

>use to vertically biamplify our AR-9 loudspeakers consists of

>a pair of identical McIntosh power amplifiers, and a Mac

>preamp. This has always seemed a pretty simple setup - who

>knew it was so sophisticated! I hope it's not screwing up the

>frequency response!

>

>Sorry, Jerry, your speakers are *not* biamplified - yours' is

>a weird concoction of shelved tone controls and dissimilar

>amplifiers, all powering into a passive crossover that was

>*never* designed to be so connected.

>

>But godspeed - you'll receive no further critique from this

>source...best of luck with everything!

ar_pro, I looked over the schematic for the AR-9'S and you are PASSIVE bi-amping. I'm sorry, I though that you went ACTIVE. Many, many folks believe that passive bi-amping is a joke and that only ACTIVE bi-amping achieves anything.

In ACTIVE operation we remove ALL passive components (internal coils caps, resistors) and replace with an active network prior to the power amp.

ar_pro, you are doing essentially the same as I except you BELIEVE you have identical amps. Have you ever put those amps on a scope to compare the outputs? I can guarantee you they are NOT identical. The normal tolerances of electrical components assures this. One amp will have higher gain than the other.

I can match my amps perfectly with my dual trace scope and be 100% positive they are matched. I can further switch phases with a flip of a switch.

Wow, I though you had gone ACTIVE which is really sophisticated and requires a ton of test gear. Sorry I misunderstood.

If you tell people what you are doing over in Audio Karma, there are many who will tell you that you are NOT bi-amping. To many bi-amping means that amps drive speakers directly with NO components in between.

I further believe that you are doing the correct thing by powering those speakers with two amps. The load on any one amp would be enormous and I don’t care how big the amp is.

Finally, I’d be terrified of removing those 7 coils. It would just be too hard to re-shape the signal correctly.

Regards,

Jerry

[ar_pro]

Jerry, it sounds like you must be unfamiliar with the level of quality control at McIntosh Labs, or you would not make such a "guarantee".

Both of our MC402 stereo amplifiers track within a hairsbreadth of each other, essentially duplicating signal generator sweeptones with their output plots. Ditto for the Mac preamp. To compare the matching of these amplifiers to what you've accomplished with a Heathkit AR1500 and a Pioneer basement amplifier is preposterous.

It's excellent that you sought out the AR-9 schematic - now take a peek at the manual, and at Tim Holl's "Engineering The AR-9", for a more complete understanding of what's going on with this legitimate version of biamping.

And if you like the bass response from your AR-3a, spend some time with a well-powered, and properly-biamped AR-9, and you'll need a whole new list of adjectives.

[onplane]

>Jerry, it sounds like you must be unfamiliar with the level

>of quality control at McIntosh Labs, or you would not make

>such a "guarantee".

>

>Both of our MC402 stereo amplifiers track within a

>hairsbreadth of each other, essentially duplicating signal

>generator sweeptones with their output plots. Ditto for the

>Mac preamp. To compare the matching of these amplifiers to

>what you've accomplished with a Heathkit AR1500 and a Pioneer

>basement amplifier is preposterous.

>

>

>And if you like the bass response from your AR-3a, spend some

>time with a well-powered, and properly-biamped AR-9, and

>you'll need a whole new list of adjectives.

>

Well, ar_pro, I can't say how well balanced your amps are and if you don't have a scope, you can't either. Even if they were perfect the day you bought them, electrical components drift over time. Who can say they are still balanced unless you measure the outputs?

What I find a little a little surprising is that you have no obvious way to correct for component drift. Many high quality amps will provide attenators so that years down the road, everything can be easily brought back into balance.

As for my systems, the HeathKit is in the basement. I'm modding the power supply. Doubling the filter condensers and replacing the bridge (10A currently and going to a 35A 400V bridge). Good winter project.

In the meantime I have two Kenwoods driving the AR-3a's. The power amp is 125 wpc 8 ohms and the integrated is 30 wpc 8 ohms (35 wpc 4 ohms). Further, by using a scope I can match them exactly, but I don't bother anymore. I'll back to adjusting the balance to my likes depending upon source (same as I used to do with tone controls).

As for the AR-9's they are a wonderful speaker, but they are NOT for me. First off they would NEVER fit in my small den. Next and I realize this is personal preference, but I'm not a big fan of the side firing woofers. To me AR's ultimate speaker is the AR9LSi as I much prefer both the front and downward firing woofers.

Unfortunately, they won't fit in my den either, so from a practical standpoint, I'd settle for the AR98LSi.

Regards,

Jerry

[ar_pro]

Hi, Jerry -

Sorry to confuse you with my previous note - it presumed that you'd be able to infer the existence of an oscilloscope from the reference to how well the amplifiers tracked identical sweeptones (does a Tektronix TDS2022B meet your standards?).

FYI: almost all McIntosh power amplifiers posess level controls.

Your theories on "component drift" are interesting, and you should definitely send off an email to the folks at the McIntosh factory - they'd almost certainly appreciate your input. Be sure to mention those Kenwood amps, too:

feedback@mcintoshlabs.com

[onplane]

>Hi, Jerry -

>

>Sorry to confuse you with my previous note - it presumed that

>you'd be able to infer the existence of an oscilloscope from

>the reference to how well the amplifiers tracked identical

>sweeptones (does a Tektronix TDS2022B meet your standards?).

>

>FYI: almost all McIntosh power amplifiers posess level

>controls.

>

>Your theories on "component drift" are interesting,

>and you should definitely send off an email to the folks at

>the McIntosh factory - they'd almost certainly appreciate your

>input. Be sure to mention those Kenwood amps, too:

>feedback@mcintoshlabs.com

>

Yep, that's a good scope the specs are just a tad better than mine:

http://www.testequipmentdepot.com/usedequi...3&2215specs.htm

I downloaded the manual to your amps, but found no level controls; at least none in the manual. Are they inside the case?

As for component drift all engineers understand this. Anyone who denies it exists, doesn't know what they are talking about.

As for my Kenwoods, I doubt that you can see on your scope any difference between my amps once I put them in balance. If you can't see any difference, then I know you can't hear any difference.

Regards,

Jerry

[Guest Russ]

>Russ, certainly 70 watt chips are better than 50 watt chips

>from a protection standpoint, but that won't change the power

>output of your amps. Unless they changed the supply

>transformer, the bridge rectifier and the filter caps, you

>still have a 50 watt amp. The 70 watt chips are capable of

>handling more current and a higher supply voltage, but neither

>will happen unless the other components were changed as well.

Jerry,

After the upgrade to the 70wps was done, I definitely noticed that the receiver had much more volume.

>Russ, you have a 50 watt amp powering two sets of speakers and

>one is a set of AR's. With all due respect, I really, really

>don't like this. The woofer in the AR's needs large doses of

>current.

>

>Contrast this with my setup where I have two amps powering a

>single set of AR-3a's:

>

>1. woofer amp - 125 wpc @ 8 ohms - 170 wpc @ 4 ohms

>2. mid/tweeter amp - 30 wpc @ 8 ohms - 40 wpc @ 4 ohms

Definitely better than my Yamaha R700 50 or 70wpc, but I like the variable spacial expander knob that acts like a graphic equalizer and does increase the mid range presence.

>Russ, I'd recommend the mod where you solder the wires going

>to the wiper to the top of the pot. This ought to bring the

>mid/tweeter to life. Alternatively, if you really, really

>want to hear it, you can cut both leads and solder together.

>This will give you approximatley another 1.5 db on the

>mid/tweeter.

>

>We want you to get more out of that high quality driver, Russ,

>so that you can turn off the speaker in your TV.

>

>Finally, I'd still recommend another small amp for the

>Sansui's. You can get amps real cheap today on ebay and the

>Sansui's don't need a big amp. 30 watts is fine.

>

>Regards,

>Jerry

Regarding the bi-amping, it sounds like it has worked well for you however over at the stereophile.com site they interviewed one of the designers of a top speaker who said that he did not like to bi-amp as it introduces further complications.

Finally I listened the other day to the Bang and Olufsen 'BeoLab 5'

described as "The most advanced and complex speaker system ever" in the link below. AR fans should be happy to know that this speaker is an acoustic suspension speaker with 15" woofers. They cost about $20,000 a pair and look like flying saucers. Each speaker has built in digital amps, one 1000 Watt!, one 250 watt for the mids and one 250 watt for the tweeter. They use the large woofers because they think that the smaller long throw woofers have to travel too far and are thereby more prone to distortion.

These speakers have a built in microphone which physically protrudes upon command and pings the room to adjust its microprocessors to compensate for the characteristics of the room it is in. While doing this it sounds and looks like a UFO from a 1950's sci-fi movie...very cool!

Bottom line is if you have 20K to play with they are amazing speakers that have an omni-directional quality and can rock you hard.

http://www.digitalhomemag.com/reviews/defa...ubsectionid=944

Russ

[Carlspeak]

.........Each speaker has built in digital amps, one 1000 Watt!, one 250 watt for the mids and one 250 watt for the tweeter. They use the large woofers because they think that the smaller long throw woofers have to travel too far and are thereby more prone to distortion.

These speakers have a built in microphone which physically protrudes upon command and pings the room to adjust its microprocessors to compensate for the characteristics of the room it is in. While doing this it sounds and looks like a UFO from a 1950's sci-fi movie...very cool!.......

SPACE AGE AUDIO NIRVANA HAS ARRIVED! Well, at least for the well-to-do

Remember, it's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

[soundminded]

Don't ask me why, it's definitely not rational but having only read what was just posted here about it and on the referenced link, there is something visceral in me which doesn't like it already. Perhaps if I heard it I'd change my mind. BTW, $20,000 is chump change compared to the price of some speakers. Von Schweikert wants $150,000 for a pair of his tip models, Wilson's top unit is in the same vacinity. Audio Note wants a mere $125,000 for theirs but then he's only giving you a pair of 2 way 8" large bookshelf sized speakers loosely based on Snell type E. Asked about it, he says much of the cost is caused by the outboard capacitors in the crossover network which together contain about 100 pounds of pure sliver. I remember when I thought a speaker which cost as much as a new car was nuts, it never entered my mind that anyone would offer speakers as much as a new house.

[onplane]

>

>Regarding the bi-amping, it sounds like it has worked well for

>you however over at the stereophile.com site they interviewed

>one of the designers of a top speaker who said that he did not

>like to bi-amp as it introduces further complications.

>

Russ, thanks for the info on the B&O's. Clearly that speaker system is run actively, where each amp directly powers the individual drivers. I'd say that's the ULTIMATE!

As for speaker maunfacturers NOT liking bi-amping, we need to be a little clear on what we are doing. I've done a fair amount of research as well and what I learned is most speaker manufacturers don't like ACTIVE bi-amping. This is where you completely remove the shaping networks inside the speaker boxes. The problem is that some active networks are NOT capable of replacing the shaping functions performed by those internal networks.

Most don't care if you simply split the load between two amps like I have done. Everything moves in the right direction when you have real heavy loads like in LST's, AR-9's and AR-3a's.

Regards,

Jerry

[Guest Russ]

Hi Vern,

Not sure if I have enough worthwhile info to write a separate thread on my AR-2X's.

They have foam surrounds which were shot when I got them and I bought a kit and re-newed them myself.

They have the 10" woofer with the square magnet and 4 mounting holes with the date 1973 stamped on the back. The tweeters are 3.5 inches.

I also had to take apart one of the pots and clean the corrosion off of it, the other one seems ok.

As I have detailed, I like the bass on these, it is tight and pretty full sounding but the mids and treble are weak, which Jerry thinks I should solve by bi-amping. I would rather improve the tweeters than have to buy and wire up twin amps (sorry Jerry), I read an interview with one of the top speaker designers and he said bi-amping adds another layer of complications which he would rather avoid.

If you put these speakers beside a tiny little one like the Totem model 1 with a 5 inch long throw woofer and open port they are going to be blown away by the Totems but perhaps with some further changing of parts it they may sound brighter, somewhat of an apples and oranges comparison I realize but as the AR-2X's stand they are not acceptable to me, they are not horrible but they are pretty muffled sounding.

I did notice in the library that one member of this site redesigned the AR2X and put in Scanspeak tweeters and different caps while also removing the pots I think. However he found using measuring equipment that there was a large gap of freqencies that were just missing, the crossover was producing some of the mids and highs and the bass but there was a large number of frequencies that were just missing, so I am not sure if this could be an inherent design problem or what?

Russ

>Hi Russ;

>

>Please write another topic about your AR-2X experiences

>please.

>

>I know that they are a bigger AR-4X but I would like to see

>what your thoughts are regarding them.

>

>Which version are yours, earliest with cloth surround, alum

>frame and 3 1/2" tweeters with fiberglass?

>

>I just recently received a pair with an adapter from a steel

>10" woofer to the larger hole pattern, with the 2

>1/2" AR-4X tweeter.

[Guest Russ]

The B&O BeoLab 5 http://www.bang-olufsen.com/page.asp?id=40 has licenced technology called Acoustic Lens which is designed to eliminate the sweet spot problem, the flying saucer shapes are not there for style they are there because physics demands they be there, just as the Jaguar XKE sports car got its shape from the wind tunnel.

You can sit anywhere in the room and get the full sound, unlike most conventional speakers.

The Bass goes all the way down to 20 hz! "ICEpower modules convert 90% of power to signal compared to analog amps that convert 90% of power to wasted heat." This allows B&O to build very small built in amps that give the speaker a total of 2500 watts of power, 2 - 1000 watt amps (low and mid bass) 1 250 watt for the mid range and 1 250 watt for the tweeter.

Funny that you said you had a visceral instinct against these speakers, I felt just the opposite, the design seems intuitively correct and I did sit and listen to them for a full demo.

Price aside...these are beauties.

Russ

>Don't ask me why, it's definitely not rational but having

>only read what was just posted here about it and on the

>referenced link, there is something visceral in me which

>doesn't like it already. Perhaps if I heard it I'd change my

>mind. BTW, $20,000 is chump change compared to the price of

>some speakers. Von Schweikert wants $150,000 for a pair of

>his tip models, Wilson's top unit is in the same vacinity.

>Audio Note wants a mere $125,000 for theirs but then he's only

>giving you a pair of 2 way 8" large bookshelf sized

>speakers loosely based on Snell type E. Asked about it, he

>says much of the cost is caused by the outboard capacitors in

>the crossover network which together contain about 100 pounds

>of pure sliver. I remember when I thought a speaker which

>cost as much as a new car was nuts, it never entered my mind

>that anyone would offer speakers as much as a new house.

[onplane]

>

>As I have detailed, I like the bass on these, it is tight and

>pretty full sounding but the mids and treble are weak, which

>Jerry thinks I should solve by bi-amping. I would rather

>improve the tweeters than have to buy and wire up twin amps

>(sorry Jerry), I read an interview with one of the top speaker

>designers and he said bi-amping adds another layer of

>complications which he would rather avoid.

>

Hi, Russ!!

Just want to clarify what I'm recommending for your particular situation and that is:

1. a separate amp for your Sansui's (this is NOT bi-amping - this just frees up a single amp for your AR-2X's)

2. solder the wiper lead to the top of the pots - this is equivalent to setting the pots to max WHEN THE POTS ARE GOOD (regardless of how much corrosion you may have on the pot wipers)

I believe bi-amping would be a stretch for you and only mentioned as a potential far off objective. The two things above should bring an immediate improvement in the mid and high frequencies.

Regards,

Jerry