Old vs. New AR 2AX

[Shacky]

I have a wonderful pair of 2AX from '65 with older driver/crossovers that I recapped, resealed and have been enjoying for 5-6 months. I also had a project pair of later 2AX's with later driver/crossovers, 4 screw woofers (one has the 6-4 screw adaptor in place that I had refoamed - recapped one this weekend and am working on the other.

Coldn't wait to hear how newer model sounds in comparison so I hooked it up in place of one of older 2AX's and put system on mono then used balance to compare basic sound from each.

I must say the newer driver compliment sounds much more natural. The older model did take some time getting acclimated to but I feel as if I've become accustome to their unique excellent sound. The newer model in comparison makes th old one sound nasally. This is just a quick test but I think I'm going to like the later model better. Downside is the cabs are crappy. I might end up taking the later components and tranplanting them into the cherry older cabs with solid walnut fronting.

That leads me to a question for all you AR affectionados. If I were to begin a transplant the older woofers look to be more substantial - and I would not have to use the 6-4 screw adaptor if I kept them. If I switch over the #7 coil in place of the older model's #5 will it effectively reduce the woofer crossover to avoid duplication in the upper bass lower mids?

Some pics - later than newer;

[Shacky]

I meant later then older model pics. Older one is in better shape - from Andy in Boston.

[charger3834]

>

>That leads me to a question for all you AR affectionados. If

>I were to begin a transplant the older woofers look to be more

>substantial - and I would not have to use the 6-4 screw

>adaptor if I kept them. If I switch over the #7 coil in place

>of the older model's #5 will it effectively reduce the woofer

>crossover to avoid duplication in the upper bass lower mids?

>

I hear what you are saying with respect to the somewhat "stuffy" sound of the 65's, compared to the more "open" sound of the newer model.

It is important to keep in mind that a big part of the new AR-2a'x charm is the smoothness of that new woofer. I am not sure what the number 7 coil would sound like with the old woofers. The old system also operated with a little more fiberglass in the cabinet.

Keep in mind that the number 5 coil survived for a short time beyond the 1970 refit. I am not sure how that "mod" would impact the 1965 crossover frequency. I guess the impeadence of the two woofers would be another variable.

Why not call the 1965's a job well done, and find some new cabinets for the others if you feel you can't restore them.

P.S. It's great to see the rare pre-1966 grill cloth in good shape ! You could even find a couple of brass "a" pins for them.

[Shacky]

Brad,

Thanks for the comments. I did not realize pre-66 grill cloth was special. Glad you old me as I was thinking of replacing it. It is stained along the bottom edge.

Jim

[Shacky]

Got both 2AX's working tonight. This pair of 2AX's is a blend of original cab and service replacement (with consecutive SN hand written), 4 screw woofers 1 with 4-6 screw adaptor one without, an eBay woofer salvaged by Carl's Custom Loudspeakers, a doner tweeter, and doner pots!

These are world speakers

So far the later version drivers/crossovers sound very different from the earlier model. I can see why someone who gets attatched to the earlier model (probably like the AR 3 vs. 3a) may not like the later version. I find the later version more similar to speakers I'm use to listening to. Definitely the warm AR sound with great bass but much more open, defined top end.

Newer:

more natural

much more top end - more detail

bass is different - punchier, I'd say a little more overall but in a different sounding way. Have to try the older ones again later tonight.

Older:

Golden midrange

hides imperfections like pops and cracks on albums.

When bass is low and sustained they are awesome

more reserved - less envasive but also less detailed.

Of course my newer model will have to break in - both caps and woofer surrounds. So I expect they will get "better" with time. God I love this hobby!

[charger3834]

I more or less hear what you are saying with respect to your observations. You should also notice that the older model is a bit more efficeint in an A-B comparison.

[Shacky]

OK - hate to bore everyone with all these details. After listening to the newer 2AX's for a couple hours decided to place the old ones back in system and see what they sounded like in comparison.

Right away I was pleased. I think I see how stereo shop guys can sell people on speakers. When I first heard the newer version with more open top end and punchier bass I thought wow these are "better". But for lack of listening fatigue and just overall inviting sound, the older model has it for me!

Of course I'll have to go back and forth a couple of times just to make sure:)

[dynaco_dan]

Hi Jim;

You are not boring anyone here.

That is the fun of this hifi hobby.

You have an opportunity to hear two different versions of the same speaker on your own time and space.

Some of us have never had the opportunity to hear either version.

I'm certain that Tom Tyson has both versions and then some.

I am happy to read about your impression and comparison of both.

With time your opinion may or may not change but you will still be enjoying both.

Thank you for your commentary, Jim.

[Andy]

Jim,

Not to take sides, but I'm glad our're leaning towards the early 2ax's you got from me last year. It's nice to see a photo of the them.....they look good.

As to sound quality, I think it's like what the audio press used to say when reviewing loudspeakers back in the 60's......"Is there listener fatigue ? And do they have "An eminently musical sound"?

Almost all early AR and KLH had these qualities. I like speakers with good specs as much as the next guy, but the ulimate test is the living room test. Of course, people have different tastes and if you listen to techno-rock or fusion jazz, maybe the later 2ax is the way to. I find the early AR, KLH well suited for the likes of Wilson Picket, Sam & Dave or even the bass heavy Canned Heat.

Andy

[Shacky]

Andy,

Good to hear from you! Those older AR's are really something special. My 24 year old son who listens to mostly death metal (ugh) likes the sound of the older model as well. I actually made up the newer pair as an incentive for him to get rid of his huge JR Music JBL's but no go. And I'm not giving him the old ones ;-)

The newer model is crisper, able to identify instruments in more detail, certainly has a lot of bass - but they just don't impress me as much as the pair I got from you.

I would like to try a pair of KLH's sometime. Right now too many speakers in da house! Have to sell some - but not yours :-)

Happy New Year and all the best in 2007!

Jim

[Shacky]

Andy,

Here's the set up with your old AR's. Picked up a Sansui 890DB (Euro version of 8080DB) last fall. The Sui really brought out the best in the 2AX's. Much better than the Pioneer SX-950 I was using before. The Sui and AR's are a match made in heaven!

[joelongwood]

Very interesting thread! I, too, am a bit torn as to which I prefer......the older or newer AR sound. I recently picked up a pair of AR2a's (not the x version), and, in direct comparison to my AR5's or 3a's they sounded quite muffled and honky. However, after listening to them exclusively for a few days, and then switching to the newer models, the AR5s and 3a's sounded rather thin in the mids, particularly the lower mids. The older 2a's have a richness to their sound that seem to elude the newer models. I have my eye on a pair of 2ax's (the older version like yours with the cloth surrounds and AR3 tweeter) on eprey, but they are a local pickup, so I can evade the exorbitant shipping costs and hopefully get them for a reasonable price. If I do acquire them, I'm anxious to see how they compare to the 2a's. Have you ever heard the 2a's?

On a similar note, I also listened to my AR4x's (the ones with the cloth surrounds) that I've had since new in 1968. I'm still amazed at the sound they put out......particularly how well balanced they are from top to bottom. Just amazing considering the size of the box.

Man, I love this forum.............it's like reading a good book. It's a real learning experience. Thanks to all.

[Shacky]

Haven't had the pleasure of listening to the 2A's - yet.

Been giving the newer set more time to settle in. Left the FM on all day. While they still have a wasy to go the bass is getting smoother. Playing some Spyro Gyra - In Modern Times. A lot more detail with the newer drivers.

If one could take the best of both these models it sure make one great speaker - or is that the 3/3a?

[joelongwood]

>Haven't had the pleasure of listening to the 2A's - yet.

>

>Been giving the newer set more time to settle in. Left the FM

>on all day. While they still have a wasy to go the bass is

>getting smoother. Playing some Spyro Gyra - In Modern Times.

>A lot more detail with the newer drivers.

>

>If one could take the best of both these models it sure make

>one great speaker - or is that the 3/3a?

Well, I think I may have just accomplished that! I realized I have some

Micro Acoustics Microstatic add-on tweeters from the early 70's. They were designed to supplement the recessed highs on many of the New England sound speakers of the day. I hooked them up to the 2a's and all I can say is "WOW"! The high end is all there, and to my ears, it's a seamless transition. The 2a's retain the warmth they possess, but now they have the detail of the newer models. Also, the nasal quality has disappeared. The tweeters can be set for a crossover at 3.5 kHz or 7 kHz.......I have them set for 3.5 kHz.They occassionaly appear on eBay, and go for between $50 and $100, although I did see a cosmetically challenged pair go for much less. I would recommend them without reservation.

You also mentioned that your Sansui (which is beautiful, BTW) is a great match for the vintage ARs. I've been using either a H/K Citation SS pre with a H/K 770 amp for the AR3a's and AR'5s, and a Yamaha CR-600 for the 2a's. But I do have a Sansui 9090 which is driving a pair of Rectilinear III's, so I'll have to give it a try with the AR's and let you know what I think. Thanks for the heads up. I'm always looking for that synergy thing.

[Andy]

Jim,

Nice set up you've incorporated the 2ax's into. That Sansui receiver looks to be a good choice and should bring out the best in the speakers. Here's quote from the February, 1966 High Fidelity Magazine on the 2ax; "We feel these speakers really come into their own when driven by high powered amplifiers that have high damping factors, such as the best recent solid state types." They go on to say "the speaker strikes us as one of the most honest reproducers we have auditioned - it easily stands up against speakers costing much more".

It's interesting that the 2ax was introduced right when the audio industry was making the huge change from tube to transistor operation. It stikes me that this speaker performed outstandingly when used with either type of amplification.

Not to worry, your son's taste in music will likely soften up in the comming years. I know mine did. Back in the 70's I was listening to Black Sabbath's 'Sabotage' LP at rather high volumes played through a Electro-Voice Regency II loudspeaker (they were as big as a stove and weighed about 150 lbs.).

Just keep playing the kinder, gentler classics...it's bound to rub of on him.

Andy

[pmsummer]

>

>Not to worry, your son's taste in music will likely soften up

>in the comming years. I know mine did. Back in the 70's I was

>listening to Black Sabbath's 'Sabotage' LP at rather high

>volumes played through a Electro-Voice Regency II loudspeaker

>(they were as big as a stove and weighed about 150 lbs.).

True story: When my oldest daughter was about 17 (ten+ years ago), she went through a HORRIBLE death/goth/metal/industrial period.

One night, I had enough. I went into her room, saw she was playing some vinyl, and said "That's awful. Where did you get THAT horrible piece of non-music?"

She looked at me and replied, "Out of the closet where you keep your old records."

The Velvet Underground's first album... which I still enjoy from time to time.

To quote Pete Townsend, "The kids are alright."

[Carlspeak]

Great story.

As the saying goes: what goes around, comes around!

It's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

[Shacky]

I grew up outside of NYC listening to the new FM stations like WNEW. Allison Steele the Nithgtripper. She'd ususally start the show with Black Sabbath 1st LP THe Wizzard, or Derick and the Dominoes Any Day.

My son was impressed that I have Black Sabbaths first 2 albums! I was a big Ten Years After, Santana, Eric Clapton fan. But that music has melodies and the singing isn"t "Argh Argh, Kil Kill..." I just don't get that stuff.

Now Bush is an example of melodies in new music - but I guess thay are passe' now.

My son does like classic rock and I've even got him appreciating Pat Methany - took him to a Pat Methany Group concert in Syracus and se sat in the pit. You have to appreciate the level of musician ship and my son will listen to a song or two now and then.

Jim

[joelongwood]

I also grew up outside NYC (Great Neck, Long Island) listening to the same stations........wasn't Allison Steele (with that incredibly sexy voice) known as the Night Bird?

[Shacky]

>I also grew up outside NYC (Great Neck, Long Island)

>listening to the same stations........wasn't Allison Steele

>(with that incredibly sexy voice) known as the Night Bird?

Right you are! Dr. John was the Night Tripper and Allison was the Night Bird. She was pretty hot. I remember her openning some concert in NYC. Long red hair. I think she stayed on for many years in management.

That voice was very sexy!

Jim

[Shacky]

I see Allison died in 1995. Here's a B&W pic.

[joelongwood]

Thanks for the pic.........here's the voice:

http://www.angelfire.com/tv2/eccentric/alison.htm#sound