AR vs modern speakers

[Gaston]

It is very hard to find a comparison on the web/forums where you can read that someone has done an A/B comparison between AR and some random modern speakers.

When this question is mentioned there are always people that without direct comparison conclude that AR's should sound "closed/boxed/muted/sub-todays standards etc".

A friend of mine owns a pair of B&W 685 S2 speakers that always amaze me when I visit him. So, we did a direct comparison with AR-6 speakers. This comparison should be fair, since both speakers should belong in similar acoustic and price group (in his own age of course).   

So, let's get directly to the point - we both agreed that the technology did not improved much in those last 50 years or so.

- B&W's had better, tighter, deeper, more pronounced low frequencies... even though the LF driver is smaller, they easily outclassed AR's with bass.

- Surprisingly, AR's mid and higher frequencies reproduction was way way way (that's 3 times  ) better than B&W's. The details were incomparable. B&W's sounded muted with some sounds obscured and were incomparably better reproduced and revealed by AR's which sound was full with air and presence. 

We used the original B&W stands for both speakers.

I would love to hear from someone that has done this kind of comparison with AR's with 12" LF driver. I have a pair or AR-3a and AR-11, but I cannot find a friend that has a comparable modern speaker... 

 

B&W 685 S2 data:

 

[jimorf735]

WOW!

[Aadams]

2 hours ago, Gaston said:

I would love to hear from someone that has done this kind of comparison with AR's with 12" LF driver. I have a pair or AR-3a and AR-11, but I cannot find a friend that has a comparable modern speaker... 

Look at this thread, particularly the tysontom post about 3/4 way down, AR9 vs BW and KEF.  Comparisons of AR3a and AR11 12 inch box style speakers to themselves or other similarly capable box speakers depends greatly on condition of the speakers, control settings , ROOM PLACEMENT and intended use.  I would be skeptical of anything that said the ARs were " blown away" by something else designed for home music enjoyment.  "Equaled" would not be surprising.  You will spend a lot more money for the new speaker than a properly working old AR.

 

[DavidR]

6 hours ago, Gaston said:

B&W's had better, tighter, deeper, more pronounced low frequencies... even though the LF driver is smaller, they easily outclassed AR's with bass.

- Surprisingly, AR's mid and higher frequencies reproduction was way way way (that's 3 times  ) better than B&W's. The details were incomparable. B&W's sounded muted with some sounds obscured and were incomparably better reproduced and revealed by AR's which sound was full with air and presence. 

I have listened to several B&W speakers and Martin Logan. I have the exact opposite opinion of the B&W. I find the tweeters exceptionally clear and precise, the mids are nice but nothing stands out as special and the bass is weak. I have listened to them being driven by a high-end solid state amp (Bryston) and big McIntosh mono tube amps. I was always un-impressed with the B&W bass. The ML were driven by McIntosh 275 tube amp. If you moved an inch off center you'd lose stereo and everything falls apart. On center they are clear but no big wow factor for me.

I always felt the AR upper end needs improvement compared to today's speakers. I find that the male voice (not singing but talking) is poorly reproduced. As for the bass when comparing them to my Bose 901_II > The Bose shake the walls but the AR bass runs down thru the frame of the house. The Bose bass is more baritone and AR is true bass.

My AR speakers for comparison are 9 and 90. Even the bass from my 10 Pi and 91's and son's TSW610 are very deep and well defined.

[genek]

Most new speakers that I see and hear give me the impression that they were designed to part of a multispeaker HT array. If you have enough of them spread around the room and a couple of subwoofers, you could probably reproduce the same low end and room-filling soundfield that a pair AR-9s would produce, and defintely a lot more high end, since that's what most consumers prefer today. You'd probably need a bunch of equalizers to get that AR rolloff if you wanted it, though.

A pair of two-ways with 6" woofers may very well outperform the 8" woofers in AR-6s, but AR-9s? No way is a pair of two-ways with 6" woofers going to do it by themselves.

[DavidR]

1 hour ago, genek said:

No way is a pair of two-ways with 6" woofers going to do it by themselves.

or even 8 inch woofers.

[genek]

8 minutes ago, DavidR said:

or even 8 inch woofers.

No, I can see how today's 6.5" woofers in a properly designed cabinet might outdo 50-year old 8" woofers.

To compare to a larger 12" AR, you'd want something like this:

https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/speaker_systems/ns-5000/index.html

[Gaston]

10 hours ago, genek said:

No, I can see how today's 6.5" woofers in a properly designed cabinet might outdo 50-year old 8" woofers.

To compare to a larger 12" AR, you'd want something like this:

https://usa.yamaha.com/products/audio_visual/speaker_systems/ns-5000/index.html

Or even better: https://atc.audio/hi-fi/loudspeakers/classic-series/scm100-2/

The woofers WERE outdone, but the old tweeters smashed the new ones:

12 hours ago, DavidR said:

 I have the exact opposite opinion of the B&W. I find the tweeters exceptionally clear and precise, the mids are nice but nothing stands out as special and the bass is weak.

It was my opinion also, until we did this A-B.

The "clear and precise" description is not wrong, they are just like that. That impression remains even after A-B with AR. It's just that the AR's tweeter reproduction was class above, it was much more gentle on the ears and at the same time much more revealing with more details (some sounds could not even be heard on 685's). That 1½" AR cone tweeter should not even reach 20kHz properly but it sounds magical (in comparison with 1" dome tweeter in 685 s2).

14 hours ago, Aadams said:

Look at this thread, particularly the tysontom post about 3/4 way down, AR9 vs BW and KEF.  Comparisons of AR3a and AR11 12 inch box style speakers to themselves or other similarly capable box speakers depends greatly on condition of the speakers, control settings , ROOM PLACEMENT and intended use.  I would be skeptical of anything that said the ARs were " blown away" by something else designed for home music enjoyment.  "Equaled" would not be surprising.  You will spend a lot more money for the new speaker than a properly working old AR.

Thanks, it was a great read. B&W Matrix 801 s2 is owned by a distant acquaintance, perhaps there will be a chance to make a comparison with AR (3a or 11).

I had problems getting my AR 11's to sound properly (for my ears), I did not want to modify the crossover and then I tried them with a Sansui AU-5900 that has bass/mid/high controls. They are great now. Their sound is "sparkling" in comparison with AR-3a, but with Sansui's mid control I managed to remove the "nasal" character of AR-11 that I hated and I believe that they now sound closer to modern speakers than to classical AR's. 

[DavidR]

15 hours ago, genek said:

No, I can see how today's 6.5" woofers in a properly designed cabinet might outdo 50-year old 8" woofers.

That is not what I was referring to. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment.

[DavidR]

On 2/24/2024 at 12:01 PM, Gaston said:

I would love to hear from someone that has done this kind of comparison with AR's with 12" LF driver. I have a pair or AR-3a and AR-11, but I cannot find a friend that has a comparable modern speaker... 

 

B&W 685 S2 data:

I was comparing the B&W 802 to my 9s and 90s. I wouldn't bother to listen to a small two-way speaker.

[AR surround]

On 2/24/2024 at 12:01 PM, Gaston said:

I would love to hear from someone that has done this kind of comparison with AR's with 12" LF driver. I have a pair or AR-3a and AR-11, but I cannot find a friend that has a comparable modern speaker... 

I have auditioned several tower speakers over the years.  As I've noted many times before, I find modern speakers to sound more detailed than the AR9, but in an antiseptic sort of way.  Also, these speakers that reveal more detail...well, they can be absolutely grating and unforgiving when playing many re-mastered redbook CD sources.  No wonder vinyl has made a resurgence.

A number of years back, I had the opportunity to A/B a pair of AR9's with KEF 105's.   Which did I prefer?   It depended on the program material: for classical music I preferred the KEF, for pop/rock I preferred the AR9.  But both of these systems were wonderful and probably still are.

On 2/24/2024 at 4:09 PM, DavidR said:

I have the exact opposite opinion of the B&W. I find the tweeters exceptionally clear and precise, the mids are nice but nothing stands out as special and the bass is weak.

Many people like the B&W speakers for the characteristics that you have noted, David.  Yet others complain of listening fatigue with B&W speakers.  Weak bass can make the highs and mids sound somewhat clearer.    I've been remixing songs using DeMix Pro.   I have used it in some instances to extract the bass stem, boost it, and remix it into the song.   Often, more than a judicious amount of boost to that bass stem diminishes clarity.

 

On 2/24/2024 at 4:50 PM, genek said:

Most new speakers that I see and hear give me the impression that they were designed to part of a multispeaker HT array. If you have enough of them spread around the room and a couple of subwoofers, you could probably reproduce the same low end and room-filling soundfield that a pair AR-9s would produce, and defintely a lot more high end, since that's what most consumers prefer today. You'd probably need a bunch of equalizers to get that AR rolloff if you wanted it, though.

A pair of two-ways with 6" woofers may very well outperform the 8" woofers in AR-6s, but AR-9s? No way is a pair of two-ways with 6" woofers going to do it by themselves.

This reminds me of when I auditioned Revel F32 floor standers.   Really nice clarity (antiseptic, though.)  I mentioned to the salesman that they lacked low bass.   He said that they needed one of those $3000 Revel subwoofers.   Sheesh!  😂

 

[ReliaBill Engineer]

I’ve been comparing a new pair of KLH 5s to my fully refurbished 1965 AR-2ax speakers. Hands down, the 2ax’s are preferable. The 5s do have slightly lower bass. But in other areas of imaging, “air”, realism, FR “balance”, smoothness and extension of treble, vocals, the 2ax’s really shine! 

[samberger0357]

On 2/28/2024 at 8:43 AM, ReliaBill Engineer said:

I’ve been comparing a new pair of KLH 5s to my fully refurbished 1965 AR-2ax speakers. Hands down, the 2ax’s are preferable. The 5s do have slightly lower bass. But in other areas of imaging, “air”, realism, FR “balance”, smoothness and extension of treble, vocals, the 2ax’s really shine! 

That's how I feel about my refurbished pair of original 5's.  I auditioned a pair of the new one's when they first came out, and while I liked them, I could never replace them with my originals.

[Asok]

Side By Side Test

Here's my subjective impressions comparing my:

• 1978 AR9s, purchased 2nd hand in 1986 (new caps in 1990, new foam surrounds 1990, 2014), 87db/1m, 40hms - and:
• My now main speakers, Golden Ear Triton One (2016 models, purchased from dealer 2019) 92db/2.83v/m, 8ohms
• Both were alternatively hooked up using same speaker wire to a NAD M33 (Class D, 200w into 8ohms, 380 into 4ohms, DIRAC not engaged) set up in my lounge listening room
• Streaming sources were Tidal playing, High, FLAC and MQA files
• Various Hi-res down to Mp3 files via ethernet from a Synology NAS
• CD via OPPO BDP 105 out to M33 via coaxial
• Vinyl via Rega P6 with Ortofon Quintet Bronze direct to M33 Phono-in (note: the M33 digitizes all incoming phono signals -there is no analogue domain)
• I played a wide range of source material from deep, modern dance electronica, historical acoustic jazz, hard rock and pop to baroque chamber works. There was also a range of male and female singers with minimal instrumental backing, however most of my tastes run to instrumental works.

There are some common-ish speaker design elements: roughly similar height and footprint (weight is: 59kg AR, 37kg GE; Height is 53 inches  and 54 inches respectively) and the use of 'some form' of side firing woofers/augmentation design - 2 in each AR, 4 in each GE (these are actually 'passive radiators', included to augment the 3, front facing woofers). While the AR is a 4-way and the GE is technically a 3-way, some regard that the passive radiators make it a 4 way - whatever. Apart from that very loose commonality they are very different beasts. The GE uses a D'Appolito array for mids and treble, while the treble itself is a folded ribbon, vs the liquid cooled AR tweeter.

The Triton One cutaway

 

The AR9s 2018

 

The Triton Ones 2020

I set them up with the ARs next to and outside of the GEs. I did this comparison in 2021 when the M33 arrived and regret not taking photos of the duo arrangement at the time. Doing it again is impossible as moving the 59kg ARs back into my living room is not an option for both my spine and my significant other right now. The ARs sit in my studio out back usually, powered by a simple, low powered amp.

For years I had driven the ARs by a NAD 7100 pre out to a pair of NAD 2200 power amps. At times friends would loan me various amps to try (ME, Krell, McIntosh) and it always confirmed what we all know -that they really opened up and thrived on gobs of power. The 2200s did a fabulous job, but those other bigger beaties did it better. So I was pleasantly surprised when I hooked them up to the M33 (which wasn't around when the speakers were changed over). The NAD had that ability to drive the ARs really, really well. In fact I had forgotten how engaging these speakers really were - they just sang. I had been living with the GEs for 4 years and new them well with 3 years under the M33 so this change of character using the ARs was exciting and a bit like returning to an old, lost memory (or girlfriend 😉). Switching back to the GEs and then back to the ARs again was fairly quick with banana plugs saving the day and was quite revealing.

This was hardly a scientific test (cognitive bias, time delay etc) but even so:

• First, general impressions - the ARs still held their place with an organic, enveloping comfort, an effortless ease kinda thing. The GEs were more present and a bit more revealing.
• Bass - across a wide variety of sources and musical genres I find (in my room anyway) that the GEs 'seemed' deeper and more articulated, especially on electronic material. The ARs, with their 12 inch woofers topped them in bass quality, timbre and what might be called emotional personality. Bass extension seemed similar but punch and wallop (which also includes mids of course) went to the ARs by just a smidge. Bass of the ARs was more overall satisfying and better integrated when playing chamber music and topped the GEs there.
• Mids - this was very dependant on source/genre, but if I had to push it I'd say the GEs for clarity and presence the ARs for involvment.
• Treble - Definitely the GEs for normal to loud (ish) levels. The folded ribbon is very revealing but not in a fatiguing way. However upon turning things up to 90db+ levels the ARs just settled in and commanded things more elegantly. The GEs ribbon will strain a bit at high volume levels, but then I usually never play anything at those levels these days..
• Imaging - at all volume levels and across all genres/sources the GEs win hands down - they are phenomenal at this. The ARs are more contained here, always have been.

So that's the cut regarding audio elements, but enjoying music to me isn't about that. While they are very important and can annoy me if not present or 'off' they do not define my listening experience. The subjective emotion, the involvment, the unconsciuos toe-tap all mean a richer and more satisfying experience for me - it's about presentation.

The ARs still do this, they just have a 'get-on-with-it' quality, the music sometimes just seems to 'fall' out of the speakers in a no-fuss, easily delivered way - total involvement. They are 'warm' and 'inviting', rather like riding in an older Bently (if you've had that pleasure) which purrs along in statley leisure then suddenly presses you back into the seat and really impresses while making you feel safe and in full control. And the bass- yes, their bass has a personality and a complete, 'not bothered' approach.

The GEs I love, am very happy to keep them as my main speakers. The involve me on a different level, the emotion and toe-tap can be there but the detail, the wonder and the giggles that they can produce just get me everytime -they have an addictive quality, I can look into music more deeply it seems. Their highly revealing nature can sometimes work against them when playing less than stellar recordings but not that often.

I don't think there is a lot of really meaningful difference in 45 years of acoustic engineering that I can see (as regards to my choices anyway - those with more expensive and/or grander systems may disagree).

This review is limited perhaps by one important factor - my ARs I'm sure could probably benefit from another round of recaps and rewiring, perhaps the tweeters could be replaced etc etc - I may get around to that, especially if I ever do decide to sell but I'm not in a hurry.

[Andre_Db66]

I have 3 different era small bookshelf speakers that do not belong in a bookshelf... paradox i know.

They directly compete or outclass the mid/high combination of AR3a or LST.

Rogers LS3/5A

Monitor Audio Studio 2

KEF LS50 Meta

I also have comparable speakers with oval racetrack 12 inch bass directly comparable to AR3a or LST and find them very detailed in the bass and much more open. They are however not modern speakers. The KEF kit 3(concertos). They are from 71 btw.

 

[newandold]

What constitutes a “modern” loudspeaker?

 

If you break down the anatomy of the mechanics typically found in today’s full range. Loudspeakers AR is pretty much as modern as any of them.

 

 

 

 

 

[Asok]

'AR is pretty much as modern as any of them.'

On the basis of the mechanics - perhaps. Basic laws of physics have not changed so in that regard, absolutely yes. However speakers are of course more than their mechanical actions and those actions vary depending on what those parts are made from and how precise the assembly has been.

The materials used in speakers made in the last 10 years (at least, perhaps 20) have changed. Computer design has lead to the ability to make parts with micro-millimetre, even microscopic precision, making for more efficient vibration, distortion and noise suppression as well as more efficient dispersal and control of sound waves. Internal bracing is now often (expensive) machined alloys, cabinets are now a wide range of stiffer materials (metal, stone, fibreglass & composites). Then there is the advent of DSP control within some speakers themselves.

Loads of changes and innovations have occurred - does this make them 'better' than older speakers? Sometimes, yes, but not always in my opinion, just different mostly.

 

[Andre_Db66]

Within the realm of different system approaches there are also advantages and disadvantages. I concurr with above opinion of the result not beong better yet often only different. A broadband speaker in backloaded horn, one point source approach, electrostatic, open baffle, bass reflex, acoustic suspension/air cushion suspension closed box, transmission line etc have all got their appeal. I find it hard to choose one as a winner because the enchantment is primarily the material.

The nostalgia of old and bulky wood vineer speakers is not for everyone taste, closing your eyes and listening to the magic is universal though. In that respect AR or Advent can directly compete with any modern speaker thrown in the comparison chart.

[newandold]

6 hours ago, Andre_Db66 said:

“The nostalgia of old and bulky wood vineer speakers is not for everyone taste, closing your eyes and listening to the magic is universal though. In that respect AR or Advent can directly compete with any modern speaker thrown in the comparison chart.”

Not sure about this……

I totally get the difference between a wooden speaker enclosure versus an acoustic suspension enclosure.

Somehow, the whole nostalgia thing to me just doesn’t fit.

[AR surround]

All of this discussion is great, but what I'm truly waiting for is an advancement that will give old ears the frequency response of that of a new born baby.

(Just had my ears tested.  They are just fine up to 8000 Hz.  After that...)

[Andre_Db66]

2 hours ago, newandold said:

Not sure about this……

I totally get the difference between a wooden speaker enclosure versus an acoustic suspension enclosure.

Somehow, the whole nostalgia thing to me just doesn’t fit.

It might be my english but i cannot follow what you are saying...

What i meant is that some people are primarily drawn to vintage speakers which are not made of composite, plastic or otherwise modern materials. AR belongs to the finer sounding lot among these wooden boxes. That can be a nostalgic issue or simply preference of sound character. Personally i love the looks combined with the sound quality. I tend to stay away from modern speakers. Furthermore i was only referring to closing your eyes that there is nothing old about AR speakers as they can directly compete with for example KEF LS50 meta that i have. State of the art modern technology vs old in terms of age yes, but acoustically up for the task of strong competition regardless of age and looks and materials used.

Both have to be setup properly in accordance with room acoustics but then i find them a close match regardless of 50 years of age difference.

Yet, how subjective is speaker comparison anyway?

[Andre_Db66]

1 hour ago, AR surround said:

All of this discussion is great, but what I'm truly waiting for is an advancement that will give old ears the frequency response of that of a new born baby.

(Just had my ears tested.  They are just fine up to 8000 Hz.  After that...)

Hearing only up to 8k... i thought my hearing had diminished a lot with 12k.

[newandold]

1 hour ago, AR surround said:

All of this discussion is great, but what I'm truly waiting for is an advancement that will give old ears the frequency response of that of a new born baby.

(Just had my ears tested.  They are just fine up to 8000 Hz.  After that...)

The last time I was checked by an audiologist, I kept putting my hand up… Whether I heard something or not she wasn’t very impressed.

[Andre_Db66]

7 minutes ago, newandold said:

The last time I was checked by an audiologist, I kept putting my hand up… Whether I heard something or not she wasn’t very impressed.

🤣

[newandold]

5 minutes ago, Andre_Db66 said:

🤣

It was even funnier than that actually…… 

The audiologist puts me in this tiny booth for the test. She was very nice and very pregnant. I have to say seven or eight months at least.

So here I am in this midget booth with this woman who is getting ready to deliver trying to crawl around me and hook up her wires and microphones. The whole thing was morphing into something straight out of a sitcom. 
so the “three” of us got it done. I hope the kid is doing just fine.