AR2AX vs AR5

[Guest matty g]

Can anyone shed some light on what the fundamental differences are between the AR2Ax and the AR5? Just purchased a near mint pair of AR5's (need refoaming is all) and they appear to have the same design as the 2AX. Basically the AR5 system is a 3A with the 10" woofer - isn't that pretty much what a 2AX was? The AR5 system is nearly as heavy as the 3A (which is what I would expect), but I seem to remeber the AR2 series being somewhat lighter than the 3A. So just what are the major design differences/modifications between the 2AX and the 5, if any? Was it simply a replacement model? I haven't really seen much reference to the AR5 system on the back pages (though I haven't looked at ALL of them yet). The AR5's certianly appear to be of the same quality as the rest of the AR line from that era. Any input on this subject would be appreciated.

Thanks

Matt

[soundminded]

They are entirely different speakers. You are correct about AR5 being an AR3a with a 10" woofer. This woofer is a definite improvement over the AR2ax woofer. The midrange dome is also superior to the AR2ax midrange driver. AR2ax was the final version of a series of at least 4 speaker systems in the AR2 family which were intended as substantially lower cost alternatives to AR3/AR3a. While AR5 represented some limitations in the lowest bass over AR3a, it had some advantages at the upper end of the woofer's range in the transition to the midrange driver. I may among the few (only) persons here who considers that for this reason, for some music, AR5 may have been the better choice. However, I think most would agree that it is one of the most overlooked, undervalued, underappreciated loudspeakers around, and therefore often an excellent value. Congratulations on your acquisition, I'm sure that once it is restored, it will give you many years of listening enjoyment. BTW, considering the age and common experience with these loudspeakers, cleaning the midrange and tweeter potentiomenters and replacing the capacitors in the crossover network is not a bad idea either.

[Steve F]

This should be helpful--

Steve F Fri Sep-01-06 10:32 AM

Member since Sep 27th 2002

305 posts #1. "RE: The AR-5"

In response to Reply # 0

          

Here is a re-print of an entry on the AR-5's history that I posted in June of 2005:

"The AR-5 was one of the later “classic” series original AR speakers. It filled in the spot between the top-of-the-line AR-3a and the half-as-expensive AR-2ax.

The 3a had a list price of $250.00 ea. in oiled walnut; the 2ax was $128 ea. in oiled walnut; the 5 was $175 ea.

From a chronological standpoint, the original 2ax was introduced in 1964, with its older-style cloth surround 10” woofer, the 3 ½” midrange and an 8-ohm version of the “fried egg” 1 3/8” dome tweeter from the AR-3. Crossovers were 2000 and 7500Hz, price was $128 ea.

At the end of 1967, the 3a superseded the 3 (although the 3 continued to be available). The 3a introduced the new 1½” dome midrange and ¾” dome tweeter, replacing the larger dome units of the AR-3.

The AR-5 followed in 1968/69. It used 8-ohm versions of the 3a’s 1½” and ¾” dome drivers and a brand new 10” woofer with a foam surround—the industry’s first. The 5 received excellent reviews from all the major magazines and was hailed as a superb speaker, with just slightly less deep bass than the 3a. In fact, many critics of the 3a were considerably “kinder” to the 5, saying that its less heavy bass actually contributed to a more pleasing overall tonal balance, without the tendency towards “thickness” that the 3a sometimes exhibited.

Note that at the time of the 5’s introduction, the 2ax was still the “old” 2ax. In 1970, AR introduced the “new” 2ax that used the 8-ohm ¾” tweeter from the 5, and its new foam-surround 10” woofer. The 3½” midrange stayed the same as in older 2ax’s, but the crossovers were lowered from 2000 and 7500Hz to 1400 and 5000Hz respectively. In spite of the extensive improvements and upgrades, the 2ax’s price also remained unchanged at $128 ea.

The AR-5 never enjoyed anywhere near the sales success of many other AR speakers, in spite of its acoustic excellence. The second to the top of the line often struggles from a sales standpoint in virtually any market or industry. In AR’s case, the second-banana syndrome was repeated with the LST/2 and AR-90, neither one of which was the sales and publicity champ that the LST and 9 were."

Steve F.

[Steve F]

You may also find this interesting:

Steve F    

Author Info Member since Sep 27th 2002

306 posts

Date Wed Oct-16-02 04:58 PM

Message

        

Suffice to say, the original AR speakers certainly elicited more than their share of controversial opinions. Many consumers and reviewers considered them to represent the very height of engineering excellence, accuracy, and uncolored, natural sound.

But there was also the “anti-AR” crowd, who thought the speakers were dull, and lacking sparkle. This group would concede AR’s outstanding bass, but criticized them for their low efficiency and what they felt was a depressed high end.

The AR-3a has always been the favorite target of the anti-AR faction. “Too much bass,” “The tweeter level can’t be brought up to match the woofer,” “It needs a big, expensive amp to drive it,” etc. This criticism reached its public zenith with the infamous Consumer Reports review. (It’s fascinating, however, to note AR’s understated and classy response to this review, in sharp contrast to another well-known Massachusetts speaker manufacturer’s highly publicized, wildly histrionic reaction to the negative review of their “revolutionary” speaker.)

My feeling is that most of the criticism of the 3a came about because of professional envy, and the natural tendency of human nature to cast aspersions at the acknowledged leader in an effort to make up for one’s own shortcomings. The AR-3 and 3a speakers, from 1958-1972, were simply the industry performance leaders in virtually every objective, measurable, quantifiable basis of comparison that existed.

Yet there is an undercurrent of grudging favorable sentiment among the naysayers towards the AR-5. I have noted this recurring theme in the over 35 years I’ve been following AR’s product development and marketing activities. Many of the same industry luminaries who have expressed derisive comments to me about the 3a have also said such things as “…but the 5 was actually a very good-sounding speaker. Better overall balance. The tweeter is not overwhelmed by the woofer the way it is in the 3a.” I have heard this many times from many people over the years. Even High Fidelity Magazine’s review of the 5 intimated a similar point of view: “…sometimes sounded tighter…more ‘immediate’ than the 3a…”

I’m curious if any other Forum members, especially the more “veteran” members, have experienced a similar reaction to the AR-5 from non-AR aficionados.

BTW, the “woofer level” relative to the tweeter was not any higher in the 3a than it was in the 5, despite what critics might have said. The 3a’s bass extension was considerably deeper than the 5’s and the psycho-acoustic masking effects of deep bass on perceived midrange and high-frequency clarity come into play when comparing the two speakers.

But that’s an entirely different subject…..

Steve F

[soundminded]

>Suffice to say, the original AR speakers certainly elicited

>more than their share of controversial opinions. Many

>consumers and reviewers considered them to represent the very

>height of engineering excellence, accuracy, and uncolored,

>natural sound.

That was an objective fact proven by live versus recorded demonstrations. I attended two. You come away from such a demonstration with enormous respect for a product which shows it will do exactly what is claimed for it.

>

>But there was also the “anti-AR” crowd, who thought the

>speakers were dull, and lacking sparkle. This group would

>concede AR’s outstanding bass, but criticized them for their

>low efficiency and what they felt was a depressed high end.

We have discussed this at length and there are many possible explanations for this. One of my own pet theories is that most major recording studios of the day used the Altec A7 Voice of the Theater speaker as a studio monitor for making critical equalization judgements when mastering their recordings. This speaker even when equalized usually had a bright harsh high end. Equalizing recordings to make them sound accurate on that speaker made them sound duller on inherently more accurate speakers like AR3/3a. Another is that the amplifiers often used were vacuum tube units, many of which had a rolled off high end. Still another was the deliberate sabotage dealers exercised by turning the tweeter and midrange controls down on demo units in an effort to steer customers to other brands whose profits were greater or whose commercial relations were more amicable. Someone else (I think it was Pete pointed out in another thread that AR3a could be made to sound just as bright as modern speakers by turning the tweeter controls up.

By contrast, many engineers and recording professionals selected these speakers as their equipment of choice even when they could afford much more espensive speakers. This and the fact that AR once was the most widely sold brand of speakers shows that not everyone felt that way.

>The AR-3a has always been the favorite target of the anti-AR

>faction. “Too much bass,” “The tweeter level can’t be brought

>up to match the woofer,” “It needs a big, expensive amp to

>drive it,” etc.

One of AR3as problems was that it was too far ahead of its time. Forty years after, these objections seem ludicrous. Adjusted for inflation, amplifiers capable of fully exploiting AR3a's capabilities are practically given away by 1960s standards. Other equipment such as equalizers and multiple amplifiers are also very cheap. In the 1960 though, they were unheard of for consumer use because of their huge cost. In 1967, a 30 band single channel equalizer, Altec Acoustavoice cost about $900 as I recall, a lot of money in those days.

>This criticism reached its public zenith with

>the infamous Consumer Reports review. (It’s fascinating,

>however, to note AR’s understated and classy response to this

>review, in sharp contrast to another well-known Massachusetts

>speaker manufacturer’s highly publicized, wildly histrionic

>reaction to the negative review of their “revolutionary”

>speaker.)

That's really a cheap shot at the Bose Corporation. Had AR marketed itself in a manner more like Bose did, it might still be alive today instead of having been written up in the corporate obituary columns more than once. Bose today is a thriving business with sales of over one billion dollars a year. Maybe there is something to be said for histrionic reactions when it comes to defending profits.

>My feeling is that most of the criticism of the 3a came about

>because of professional envy, and the natural tendency of

>human nature to cast aspersions at the acknowledged leader in

>an effort to make up for one’s own shortcomings. The AR-3 and

>3a speakers, from 1958-1972, were simply the industry

>performance leaders in virtually every objective, measurable,

>quantifiable basis of comparison that existed.

It's hard to say why AR3 and AR3a were not universally accepted as the standard by which all others are judged. There may have been many reasons besides envy. Marketing and other commercial failures aside, I think there is a natural preference especially among inexperienced listeners and those for whom accuracy is not a consideration to prefer brighter sounding speakers. I think manufacturers today exploit that knoweldge deliberately making their speakers sound bright and not putting level controls on them so that the retailers can't adjust them to be less bright. This gives them an edge in rapid fire A/B comparisons in dealer showrooms. It isn't until the customer gets them home and lives with them for awhile that he experiences the listener fatigue this type of distortion invariably causes. Rather than accept that he made a mistake, he searches for ways to mitigate the problem by purchasing vacuum tube amplifiers in preference to more accurate solid state units, prefers phonograph records to cds with better high frequency performance, and even looks for exotic wires all in an effort to reduce the shrillness of these flawed loudspeaker designs.

>Yet there is an undercurrent of grudging favorable sentiment

>among the naysayers towards the AR-5. I have noted this

>recurring theme in the over 35 years I’ve been following AR’s

>product development and marketing activities. Many of the same

>industry luminaries who have expressed derisive comments to me

>about the 3a have also said such things as “…but the 5 was

>actually a very good-sounding speaker. Better overall balance.

>The tweeter is not overwhelmed by the woofer the way it is in

>the 3a.” I have heard this many times from many people over

>the years. Even High Fidelity Magazine’s review of the 5

>intimated a similar point of view: “…sometimes sounded

>tighter…more ‘immediate’ than the 3a…”

>I’m curious if any other Forum members, especially the more

>“veteran” members, have experienced a similar reaction to the

>AR-5 from non-AR aficionados.

Frankly Steve, most audiophiles today never even heard of AR5. In fact many never even heard of AR3 or AR3a. This is ancient history to them. To get a perspective of how long a time span 40 years actually is, think of what the world was like 40 years before you were born. 40 years before I was born (in 1948) the Wright Brothers had barely flown the first airplane. World War I was still years away. The Titanic hadn't been built yet. Electric lights were still a novelty. Only among the select few of us who were there is any of this of real value. I look at it as an opportunity to acquire a treasure trove of equipment I never expected to be able to afford.

>BTW, the “woofer level” relative to the tweeter was not any

>higher in the 3a than it was in the 5, despite what critics

>might have said. The 3a’s bass extension was considerably

>deeper than the 5’s and the psycho-acoustic masking effects of

>deep bass on perceived midrange and high-frequency clarity

>come into play when comparing the two speakers.

>

I agree with you 100% about that and I have developed strategies to deal with it so that deep bass is possible without throwing musical timbre out of balance but that is also another story.

[Guest linedrive]

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/1824.jpg

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/1825.jpg

[Guest matty g]

Soundminded and Steve;

Thank you very much for your informative replies. I agree that the AR5 seems to be overlooked in a big way. I am curious as to the improvements made on the woofer. Was it a larger voice coil and magnet structure? Also - did they ever manufacture an AR5 with the doped fabric surround (it seems like the 5 was always made with the doomed foam surround).

As far as the "naysayers" who think the AR3A is lacking high end, well that simply ain't so! I use various sources (vinyl,reel-to-reel and cd) and drive with a somewhat modest Pioneer SX 850. I find that the 3A's are quite brilliant with full satisfying midrange. How anyone could imply that they lack high end or accuracy is beyond me. I hadn't heard a pair of speakers that sounded PERFECT when driven flat until the 3A's came along. No equalizers, no tone controls engaged, just flat power.

I also own a pair of TSW610's driven with an Adcom GFA200 coupled to a Tandberg 3002A preamp, and I find that system to be far too bright. The midrange is a little pushy, too. That's not meant to put that speaker system down - it may well be the Tandberg that is overly strident - it just has a different sound. Overly present high and mid frequencies do not equal accuracy! This seems to be the trend in our digital recording age. I often find "remixed" cd versions of recordings that I also own on vinyl and find the cd versions to be fatiguing to listen to - maybe I should buy some "earbuds" or an I-Pod or something. Or just stick with the old Thorens.

Thank you for the insight on the AR5 system. I will cherish them and the 3A's forever.

Matt

[dynaco_dan]

Hi there;

Thank you very much Soundminded and Steve for both your very interesting write-ups.

Even all these decades later, I find other listeners opinions of value.

I never lived with AR-5's, I now feel I've missed something special, thank you.

[tysontom]

>

>I am curious

>as to the improvements made on the woofer. Was it a larger

>voice coil and magnet structure? Also - did they ever

>manufacture an AR5 with the doped fabric surround (it seems

>like the 5 was always made with the doomed foam surround).

>

The AR-5 introduced several important innovations with regard to AR's 10-inch woofer series. It was the first, I believe, to utilize a urethane-polymer ("foam") surround rather than treated cloth. This may seem bad to some, but in truth the closed-cell foam surround was a great technological improvement and was superior in many regards to cloth, particularly in damping cone resonances and "edge reflections." Woofers usually exhibit lower distortion (but barely so) with foam surrounds; the only problem is the slow deterioration that occurs with the material -- usually within 10-15 years or so as the foam begins to oxidize and crumble. Treated cloth tends to dry out and "leak," but it never completely crumbles.

The second advancement in the AR-5 woofer was the implementation of a low-loss cone material, quite floppy and seemingly non-rigid. Some unassuming restorers have actually painted the cones or added glues and similar materials to *stiffen* this "crippled" cone, feeling that the cone had become defective because of its floppy texture. Changing that texture simply ruins the cone's greatest strength: smoothness in response and lack of resonances. Anyway, the AR-5 cone was a felted-paper cone impregnated with a asphalt-like substance that gave it those special characteristics.

The third thing different in the AR-5 was a longer voice coil than in the earlier AR-2/AR-2ax series, thus pumping out lower-distortion bass at somewhat higher output levels than the AR-2-series. The system resonance was the same on both series, but the low-frequency distortion was lower in the original AR-5.

All this wonderful theoretical stuff changed somewhere in the middle of the life of the AR-5 when AR decided to consolodate 10-inch woofers between the AR-2 and AR-5 series. I think this occurred somewhere around 1973, after Roy Allison left. The AR-LST-2 used the newer woofer, not the original AR-5 woofer.

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/1826.jpg

Original AR-5 with early woofer

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/dc/user_files/1827.jpg

AR-5 with generic-style woofer

Note, to that the midrange-tweeter mounting is different. There were two versions of the cabinet-mounting scheme that later standardized into a single configuration.

--Tom Tyson

[Guest matty g]

Tom and Linedrive-

Excellent report and article on the AR5. The quality of people on this site equals the quality of the loudspeaker systems we all love and respect so much! I think that the AR5 has been very well represented here, and I will go into this restoration with a thorough understanding of the 5A's history and production quirks - that kind of information is priceless. The review article will go into my files also - very informative!

Thank you all

Matt

[Guest matty g]

Tom and Linedrive-

Excellent report and article on the AR5. The quality of people on this site equals the quality of the loudspeaker systems we all love and respect so much! I think that the AR5 has been very well represented here, and I will go into this restoration with a thorough understanding of the 5A's history and production quirks - that kind of information is priceless. The review article will go into my files also - very informative!

Thank you all

Matt

[onplane]

>I also own a pair of TSW610's driven with an Adcom GFA200

>coupled to a Tandberg 3002A preamp, and I find that system to

>be far too bright. The midrange is a little pushy, too. That's

>not meant to put that speaker system down

>

> Matt

>

>

Matt, it seems that we have something in common! Both of us have a set of AR3a's AND a set of TSW610's.

My experience, Matt, with the TSW's is similar to yours. That is, I found my 3a's to sound "dull" and "muddy" compared to the TSW's. Bass, however, has always been superior on the 3a's ... not even a contest.

After much reading on this forum, I decided that something had to be wrong with the 3a's and the first thing that came to mind was the pots. I played with them extensively and that got the 3a's closer to the TSW's but still a long ways away.

So, I experimented with bi-amping the 3a’s and have never returned to the single amp configuration. Now, I can make my 3a’s brighter than the TSW’s, … if I want. In short, I am in complete control of the balance and now the 3a’s sound much clearer/cleaner than the TSW’s.

If I were to characterize the differences now between a bi-amped AR-3a and the TSW610, I believe that:

1. bass continues to be deeper, tighter and generally better in the 3a’s

2. mid-range is much clearer in the 3a’s and I believe that is due to the 3a’s unique dome driver

3. both have good tweeters, but I’d give a slight edge to the TSW and that slight advantage may be 100% due to the tweeter’s position. That is, it’s almost 8 inches higher!

Regards,

Jerry

[Guest matty g]

Hi Jerry

*Happy New Year*

Let me start by clarifying my position on the sound of my AR3A's vs the sound of the TSW-610 system. While restoring the 3A system I bypassed the pots, leaving the resistor portion of them electrically in line. This brought the tweeter and midrange to their full original setting, which I don't consider muddy at all. Of course there are many variables that have an effect on the sound of this system (my living room has plaster walls, for example - a very "live" sounding room) but I've heard that model in accoustically "dead" rooms and they still sounded properly balanced to me.

The system with the TSW-610's, on the other hand, seems so bright and "midrangy" that it's almost out of control. Again, it may be the Tandberg that sends that signal to the Adcom (it's a GFA-2, not a 200 - sorry) but the 610, while certianly a very respectable system, just doesn't seem to be as well balanced as the 3A and (hopefully) the 5. BTW- I have read your posts on bi-amping and am considering it when I have more time - that's good stuff!

New Year's Eve I had my bandmates over here for a get together and they brought out a copy of our cd that they have been mixing and remixing in the studio for the last 3 months. "You've GOT to hear it through these 3A's" I told them. "Use THESE as your reference" I told them. Their jaws dropped when they heard what it REALLY sounded like. Back to the studio! "The Tannoys right in your face just doesn't represent the real world" I told them.

CHEERS

Matt

[onplane]

> Hi Jerry

>

> *Happy New Year*

>

> Let me start by clarifying my position on the sound of my

>AR3A's vs the sound of the TSW-610 system. While restoring

>the 3A system I bypassed the pots, leaving the resistor

>portion of them electrically in line. This brought the tweeter

>and midrange to their full original setting, which I don't

>consider muddy at all. Of course there are many variables that

>have an effect on the sound of this system (my living room has

>plaster walls, for example - a very "live" sounding

>room) but I've heard that model in accoustically

>"dead" rooms and they still sounded properly

>balanced to me.

>

> The system with the TSW-610's, on the other hand, seems so

>bright and "midrangy" that it's almost out of

>control.

>Matt

>

Hi, Matt and Happy New Year to you as well!

When you say you "bypassed the pot leaving the resistor", what exactly did you do? Did you solder the wiper lead to the top of the pot?

If this is what you did, then you are 100% correct. This is equivalent to setting the pots to max back when the speakers were new.

As for the midrange on the TSW610's, I don't find it offensive. I just don't think that 6.5 inch midrange is capable of producing the clarity of sound that we get from the 38mm dome on the 3a.

Now, I can't prove it, but I really believe the dome mid driver on the 3a has just excellent transient response.

Regards,

Jerry

[Guest matty g]

Hi Jerry

In response to your question about the tweeter pots - yes that is exactly what I did and will continue to do as this is, in my opinion, the best solution to this problem.

We are in total agreement on the TSW-610 - the 3A's mid driver is far more capable of accurately reproducing the midrange frequencies. I don't really find the 610 offensive, just a little pushy in that register. The TSW-610 is a great system, and I consider myself lucky to have them, they're just a different animal than the 3A and5 systems.

Matt

[Guest SherwoodFool]

There is is no better Speaker than the AR-5 in the house; Even w AR- 3'a period. What you get is a refinement of the 2ax's & 3a's. It seems to me that all the AR in between models were better; AR-4 vs AR-6 for instance. Maybe I'm getting old & and still rememember Fritz Reiner & THe Adderly Bros. but you got best of anybodies bargain.Get youself to any place where you can here areal voice or saxaphone, trumpet,etc. and close your eyes. Try one of those 1980 yamaha DSP' w Bach church or the Village Gate. Go to a real opera or James Taylor, Stevie Wonder.

BTW, there is Acoustic Suspension sound.

SherwoodFool

[rl1856]

I have experience with the 2ax, 3a and 5. My father has owned a pr of 3a for many years, and I used a pr of 5 in HS, College and for several years after. I have also owned a pr of 2ax for several years.

To my ears, the 5 was the better sounding speaker. The 5 did a better job of coupling with my rooms than did the 3a. Over the years I theorized that the deeper bass output of the 3a (compared to the 5) tended to excite room nodes in a way that the 5 did not. In addition, the decreased deep bass of the 5 also improved midrange clarity.

The 8ohm load of the 5 was easier for most SS amps to drive. I used my pr with a Heath AR-1500 (60wpc) and later an Adcom 535 (60wpc).

I still have my 5 pr (and 2ax), but they are in need of restoration.

I agree; the 5 is an underlooked model.

Best,

Ross

[Aadams]

The last post in this thread was 5 years ago. This may seem redundant but I have an AR5 update. I finally got my AR5s working and set them in exactly the same spot where 2axs had been operating for several months. I also have 3as connected in another system in an adjacent room and can feed both systems from a single source. Getting directly to the point, in my opinion, the AR5 and 3a while not identical, do have a very close resemblance above the low bass frequencies. Having them in seperate rooms as I do makes it almost impossible to nail down the specific differences but it doesn't matter because they are so similar in character. Both are excellent. AR5s are still flying under the radar even now in 2012. My 2axs compared to the 5 and 3a sound somewhat withdrawn or reserved which I find enjoyable with non-classical music . I will put my 2s back on line in another system. I guess my point is you can get 3a sound for less than the price of 2ax in the current market which is a reversal of the original value proposition between the two speakers. AR5s are relatively scarce but they are worth the wait and could be a satisfying alternative to the 3 or 3a.

[Gerry S]

I believe the rise and fall of AR cannot be attributed to any single "reason". Their early sucess is pretty clear-cut to me. They INVENTED "acoustiic suspension"; VERY deep bass in a small cabinet. But AR focused on classical music lovers, which is a very small percentage of the "audiophile audiance", which again is a very small market of the general music loving population. Furthermore "hi-fi" has always been a "guy thing", which further limits it's appeal.

If you LOOK at the classic era AR's, they ALL look "consevative" (almost identical). In short, "market niche" is somewahat of an oversatement; more lke AR loyalist. At the same time, their West Coast competitors (JBL) LOOKED more modern and "sexy", appealed visually and sonically to the college kids listening to pop on mid-priced recievers. I'm guessing the pop/rock audiophile crowd outnumberd the classical music audiophile crowd 20 to 1.

Whether you like or don't like Bose's or JBL's sound is irrelevant. They survived and prospered because they LOOKED "sexy" and souded "good enough" to their respective buyers. Industrial design probably took priority over "performance". I can't recall an AR product which I liked sonically AND looked "modern" when compared to it's compeitors.

Whether we admit it or not, ALL of us "listen" with our eyes FIRST. AR products didn't have that "refined look" of other "reputable brands" competing in the same "market niche". I believe if AR put more emphasis on industrial design, they might still be a major player today.

[tysontom]

I believe the rise and fall of AR cannot be attributed to any single "reason". Their early sucess is pretty clear-cut to me. They INVENTED "acoustiic suspension"; VERY deep bass in a small cabinet. But AR focused on classical music lovers, which is a very small percentage of the "audiophile audiance", which again is a very small market of the general music loving population. Furthermore "hi-fi" has always been a "guy thing", which further limits it's appeal.

If you LOOK at the classic era AR's, they ALL look "consevative" (almost identical). In short, "market niche" is somewahat of an oversatement; more lke AR loyalist. At the same time, their West Coast competitors (JBL) LOOKED more modern and "sexy", appealed visually and sonically to the college kids listening to pop on mid-priced recievers. I'm guessing the pop/rock audiophile crowd outnumberd the classical music audiophile crowd 20 to 1.

Whether you like or don't like Bose's or JBL's sound is irrelevant. They survived and prospered because they LOOKED "sexy" and souded "good enough" to their respective buyers. Industrial design probably took priority over "performance". I can't recall an AR product which I liked sonically AND looked "modern" when compared to it's compeitors.

Whether we admit it or not, ALL of us "listen" with our eyes FIRST. AR products didn't have that "refined look" of other "reputable brands" competing in the same "market niche". I believe if AR put more emphasis on industrial design, they might still be a major player today.

Well, this is an interesting comment. "They survived because they LOOKED 'sexy.'"

JBL survived because it turned to professional sound and a new owner, not because it looked good. The company had many scrapes with death before being bought up and re-invigorated with capital and redirected in the market-place. Bose survived because the company was exceptionally well-managed and got into professional sound, automotive systems, aerospace and other diversified products, along with audio products. Bose also has never had debt; it has reinvested all profits into R&D since 1968, so during the bad times, the company always managed to persevere while many other heavily leveraged audio companies bit the dust. And today Bose has sales in excess of $2 Billion—a pretty good testimonial to a well-run company.

AR's early success is indeed pretty clear-cut and certainly due in large part to the invention of the acoustic-suspension system. But after the 1955 Audio League Report and the 1956 Mt. Kisco Aeolian-Skinner live-versus-recorded organ concert, sales took off quickly despite the AR-1s relatively high cost. So it was indeed that outstanding bass performance—never surpassed by any company for nearly twenty years—that put AR soundly on the map. Almost as important were the excellent audio-magazine critical reviews, top-rating in Consumer Reports, the brilliant but self-effacing magazine ads and the first Full five-year product warranty that also ramped-up AR's reputation and image in the audio world. Yet in the beginning, only the well-heeled audiophile could afford to purchase the relatively expensive $185 AR-1. Most decent-quality speakers of that period could be bought for one-half that amount; add to that the onslaught of stereo sound in the late 1950s, and the price got even higher. Fortunately, the inexpensive AR-2 was introduced early in 1958, and for half the price of an AR-1, an audiophile could get nearly identical performance. By late 1958 AR had introduced the all-conquering AR-3, thus introducing the "dome" hemispherical direct-radiator tweeter accompanied by the AR-1's superb woofer. Stereo was on the scene, and putting two rather handsome AR-3s on a bookshelf or stand was infinitely more aesthetically acceptable than two refrigerator-sized Bozak B-310As or Altec Lansing Voice of The Theater or Electro-Voice Patrician floor-standing behemoths.

AR's popularity and sales soared, and by 1966 the company had nearly 33% of the entire domestic loudspeaker market. A lot of this early success was probably due to the brilliance of Edgar Villchur, because by 1968, AR's market-share had dropped to 24.60%—still highest in the industry—but declining. Still, the staid-looking AR speakers continued to dominate the market place until 1974, at which time Advent took the lead with 8.5% over AR's 8.1%. JBL during these years was running around 6%; Bose was gaining, and by 1985 had 7.2% to AR's 3.7%. By the way, these market-share numbers are a compilation from the Institute of High Fidelity Manufacters' data and surveys done by the publisher of HiFi/Stereo Review. The latter's survey was ended in the 1980s when Avery Fisher complained about the numbers and threatened to cease advertising in the magazine.

So therefore, aesthetics certainly had a lot to do with sales success, but it was not the driving force in my view.

--Tom Tyson

[ar_pro]

Actually, AR's initial "industrial design" set the tone for everything that followed, as they were the FIRST company to get extended bass from a small box.

And, de gustibus non est disputandum, but as far as not looking "modern", each decade from the '50s through the early '80s saw a top-of-the-line AR system with an appropriate aesthetic.

It also seems like you're conflating overlapping decades when you cite your "20 to 1" listenership differential - this wasn't the case for the first 10-15 years of AR's existence, and certainly not for the universe of paying customers.

Just for fun, would you like to take a guess at AR's market share during that period?

Oops - Tom spilled the beans on market share.

[Gerry S]

Actually, AR's initial "industrial design" set the tone for everything that followed, as they were the FIRST company to get extended bass from a small box.

And, de gustibus non est disputandum, but as far as not looking "modern", each decade from the '50s through the early '80s saw a top-of-the-line AR system with an appropriate aesthetic.

It also seems like you're conflating overlapping decades when you cite your "20 to 1" listenership differential - this wasn't the case for the first 10-15 years of AR's existence, and certainly not for the universe of paying customers.

Just for fun, would you like to take a guess at AR's market share during that period?

Oops - Tom spilled the beans on market share.

That "20 to 1" was a guestimate. As Tom stated , that "staid " look was AR's "visual signatuure" for quite some time. And I'm still betting the vast majority of us (myself excluded) oldtimers liked that "laid -back" concert hall slope were primary "classical music" buffs.

Besides myself, who else among the "veterans" that blog here use pop-rock-folk "studio mixed -muti-tracked" as their PRIMARY music source for both musical enjoyment and evaluating loudspeakers ???? I did use Telarc & Sheffield "audiophile grade" recordings to test the limits. But I also used relatively "mainstream stuff" like Pink Floyd and others . What I'm saying is the ratio of "pop" listeners to "classical" listeners is huge; "20 to 1" could be an understatement.

Pop stuff back then were often mastered on JBL's . Radio stations used JBL's . Their foam grills were colorful (orange i think) and the woofers used WHITE cones ! That's what i meant by "industrial design" ; to catch the eye of a potential purchaser.

AS "accurate" as the AR vintage products were, how many recording studios and radio stations used them as "monitors" ? I'm betting a very, very, very small percentage. I believe the majority of highly regarded monitors for critical evaluation of classical music back then were probably British /European designs.

From my perspective, the best looking AR (up to and including the Teledyne years) just didn't have that "refined look" of Braun, KEF, and many others. Lke I said, most of us tend to "listen" with our eyes FIRST !

[Gerry S]

You may also find this interesting:

Steve F

Author Info Member since Sep 27th 2002

306 posts

Date Wed Oct-16-02 04:58 PM

Message

Suffice to say, the original AR speakers certainly elicited more than their share of controversial opinions. Many consumers and reviewers considered them to represent the very height of engineering excellence, accuracy, and uncolored, natural sound.

But there was also the "anti-AR" crowd, who thought the speakers were dull, and lacking sparkle. This group would concede AR's outstanding bass, but criticized them for their low efficiency and what they felt was a depressed high end.

The AR-3a has always been the favorite target of the anti-AR faction. "Too much bass," "The tweeter level can't be brought up to match the woofer," "It needs a big, expensive amp to drive it," etc. This criticism reached its public zenith with the infamous Consumer Reports review. (It's fascinating, however, to note AR's understated and classy response to this review, in sharp contrast to another well-known Massachusetts speaker manufacturer's highly publicized, wildly histrionic reaction to the negative review of their "revolutionary" speaker.)

My feeling is that most of the criticism of the 3a came about because of professional envy, and the natural tendency of human nature to cast aspersions at the acknowledged leader in an effort to make up for one's own shortcomings. The AR-3 and 3a speakers, from 1958-1972, were simply the industry performance leaders in virtually every objective, measurable, quantifiable basis of comparison that existed.

Yet there is an undercurrent of grudging favorable sentiment among the naysayers towards the AR-5. I have noted this recurring theme in the over 35 years I've been following AR's product development and marketing activities. Many of the same industry luminaries who have expressed derisive comments to me about the 3a have also said such things as "…but the 5 was actually a very good-sounding speaker. Better overall balance. The tweeter is not overwhelmed by the woofer the way it is in the 3a." I have heard this many times from many people over the years. Even High Fidelity Magazine's review of the 5 intimated a similar point of view: "…sometimes sounded tighter…more 'immediate' than the 3a…"

I'm curious if any other Forum members, especially the more "veteran" members, have experienced a similar reaction to the AR-5 from non-AR aficionados.

BTW, the "woofer level" relative to the tweeter was not any higher in the 3a than it was in the 5, despite what critics might have said. The 3a's bass extension was considerably deeper than the 5's and the psycho-acoustic masking effects of deep bass on perceived midrange and high-frequency clarity come into play when comparing the two speakers.

But that's an entirely different subject…..

Steve F

I can't remember whether I actually owned AR 5's or not; Definately owned 3a's! IF i could have just ONE "classic" AR speaker based on overall tonal balance for MY broad musicical taste in a "blind A-B listening test", I think I would probably choose the AR5 over the AR 3a. I truly believe the AR3a to be a "classical music loudspeaker" (whether this was AR's intention or not). As noted by others, I too found it imparted a "chestiness" to most vocal recordings from just about any genre I listened to. In that sense, I did not find the AR3a "neutral". But I kept them (had two pairs) for the longest time because they were so "highly regarded" by reviewers. Only when I learned to rely on my OWN ears (instead of the reviewers) have I learned to "discriminate" among the many "distinguishing attributes" of what makes a "good speaker". Is the AR3a "famous" ? Undoubtedly ! Is it "accurate" ? That's debatable.

[ar_pro]

As mentioned previously, the AR-5 and AR-3a have almost identical sonic signatures, with the extended-bass advantage going to the 3a, because of its superior woofer.

Maybe the "chestiness" you experienced was due to some other aspect of your audio system?

As Steve F notes, there's been a substantial amount of revisionist opinion regarding the AR-5, and I believe that much of it comes from people who'd never actually heard the two speakers "in their day", and with adequate amplification and source material. My recollection is of two virtually identical-sounding loudspeakers, with one able to reach more deeply into the lower regions than the other. They were peas in a pod, except for that bottom octave.

Having owned speakers from a number of manufacturers (JBL & Altec, included), I have yet to encounter a "neutral" system - all of them have had their attributes and compromises; but I do believe that AR's original approach to reproduction was consistantly the most valid and successful, resulting in a number of extraordinary loudspeakers that have withstood the test of time.

[Gerry S]

As mentioned previously, the AR-5 and AR-3a have almost identical sonic signatures, with the extended-bass advantage going to the 3a, because of its superior woofer.

Maybe the "chestiness" you experienced was due to some other aspect of your audio system?

As Steve F notes, there's been a substantial amount of revisionist opinion regarding the AR-5, and I believe that much of it comes from people who'd never actually heard the two speakers "in their day", and with adequate amplification and source material. My recollection is of two virtually identical-sounding loudspeakers, with one able to reach more deeply into the lower regions than the other. They were peas in a pod, except for that bottom octave.

Having owned speakers from a number of manufacturers (JBL & Altec, included), I have yet to encounter a "neutral" system - all of them have had their attributes and compromises; but I do believe that AR's original approach to reproduction was consistantly the most valid and successful, resulting in a number of extraordinary loudspeakers that have withstood the test of time.

For those all those AR 3a owners out there, simple enough to audibly test for "chestiness" in the vocal range (especially male voices). Take ANY source that has JUST a "voice" on it. The voice should be "spoken" (though singing is ok), preferably male (female is ok too). Place any other speaker next to the AR3a, then switch between the two.

It's been my experience that any "chestiness" is clearly more pronounced on the AR3a when DIRECTLY compairing the two speakers side by side. My theory: "Vocals" span a pretty wide range of frequencies: as low as the "mid- bass"; as high as the "lower treble". The Ar3a's elevated bass level coupled with the shelved/sloped midrange probably exaerbates any source material containing just a hint of lower bass emphasis and/or a rolled-of upper midrange.

The sources I used for "vocal naturalness" could just be about anything: TV dialog, FM dialog, DVD dialog, VHS dialog, CD test recordings with either male or female "announcers" identifing various "test tracks".

I'd like very much to hear what other AR3a owners report when they try this simple test for "vocal naturalness".