Jump to content

AR-90 10" woofer foam surround replacements


Guest radkrisdoc

Recommended Posts

Guest radkrisdoc

Hi everyone....I'm still working on my AR-90 speakers. I have four woofers which need refoaming now. I posted here recently about refoaming a job that was already done, changed my mind about those woofers and bought 4 other 10" woofers now which have never been worked on before and have rotten foam.

I will be doing the "refoaming" myself.

My questions for the members in this forum:

1. What are the different sources for foam surrounds here in the US? Have you had any experiences with the sources?

2. What is the life expectancy of the new replacement surrounds? Do I have to deal with foam rot again?

3. Has anyone here tried replacing the foam surrounds with rubber surrounds? Are they even available?

4. After refoaming, has anyone measured the T/S parameters for the AR-90 10" woofers? I am concerned about how the characteristics will differ, if replaced with a surround not suited for the application.

In the beginning I thought I would just buy new drivers available at Madisound or parts express, but now am thinking that restoring my AR-90's is more to do with maintaining orignality, at which point restoration becomes more of art than just making them sing.

To everyone who reply, thank you in advance for the support and friendly advice. Kris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Hi everyone....I'm still working on my AR-90 speakers. I have

>four woofers which need refoaming now. I posted here recently

>about refoaming a job that was already done, changed my mind

>about those woofers and bought 4 other 10" woofers now

>which have never been worked on before and have rotten foam.

>I will be doing the "refoaming" myself.

>My questions for the members in this forum:

>1. What are the different sources for foam surrounds here in

>the US? Have you had any experiences with the sources?

Use the CSP search function. There have been many posts regarding foam sources for AR and other classic speakers.

>2. What is the life expectancy of the new replacement

>surrounds? Do I have to deal with foam rot again?

Depends on how old you are. They should last another 15-20 years.

>3. Has anyone here tried replacing the foam surrounds with

>rubber surrounds? Are they even available?

Some are. But do you want to risk changing the compliance properties? If you truly want to restore them as you say below, re-surround with foam.

>4. After refoaming, has anyone measured the T/S parameters for

>the AR-90 10" woofers? I am concerned about how the

>characteristics will differ, if replaced with a surround not

>suited for the application.

I have tested AR90 drivers I refoamed. Did the characteristics differ? Don't know because there are no original specs to compare them to.

I'll be glad to share my data when you get yours done. Can you do testing as well? If not, that's okay because your ears are the best test instrument anyway.

>

>In the beginning I thought I would just buy new drivers

>available at Madisound or parts express, but now am thinking

>that restoring my AR-90's is more to do with maintaining

>orignality, at which point restoration becomes more of art

>than just making them sing.

Enjoy your restoration project!

>To everyone who reply, thank you in advance for the support

>and friendly advice. Kris

It's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest radkrisdoc

>Use the CSP search function. There have been many posts

>regarding foam sources for AR and other classic speakers.

Hi Carl,

Yes, I did search CSP....there is no clear answer, no supplier identified, only M_sound, Simplyspeakers, Partsexpress and such. They sell foam surrounds with no accompanying specifications.

You, on the other hand, have measured some woofers after refoaming. Please tell me if there are different kinds of 10" foam replacements and which one works best in your hands and where I can get them. Kris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>>Use the CSP search function. There have been many posts

>>regarding foam sources for AR and other classic speakers.

>

>Hi Carl,

>Yes, I did search CSP....there is no clear answer, no supplier

>identified, only M_sound, Simplyspeakers, Partsexpress and

>such. They sell foam surrounds with no accompanying

>specifications.

>You, on the other hand, have measured some woofers after

>refoaming. Please tell me if there are different kinds of

>10" foam replacements and which one works best in your

>hands and where I can get them. Kris

>

>

There are no specs for foam surrounds. You have to rely on the supplier's knowledge and experience for the correct one. I recommend Miller Sound. They seem to get the best reviews at CSP. Tell them what you have and give them the cone OD and frame measurements. For a typical AR surround, the thinnest foam usually works best.

I'm not a re-seller of foam surrounds. I get mine from a wholesale supplier to professional speaker repair shops.

It's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest radkrisdoc

I am going to compile a list of stores that carry replacement surrounds for the AR-90 woofers. I will probably have to buy one piece each from the stores, compare them and see what would work best. I am also in search of a facility that would measure T/S parameters for a fee. This might take some time, but I will eventually get to it. I'll keep you all posted. Kris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Guest radkrisdoc

I've done some fairly thorough research online for replacement surrounds for the 10" woofers now. This is what I've found:

1. Lots of generic 10" surrounds in the market backed up by "20 years of experience in audio" or maybe more. Who manufactures these surrounds? Probably some company in Asia, with no experience. That's my bet. I dont believe that one size fits all 10" woofers. Each 10" woofer that has the same dimensions still differs in characteristics and I dont understand how you can substitute one foam for all makes and models, just because it fits size-wise.

2. There are some stores that claim that they sell "original US made surrounds" and customers should not "fall for the cheap looking black ones from China". Is this true?

3. Most who are for refoaming say that there are exact replacements being made and still available for each particular, specific vintage woofer. Can anyone verify that?

Some stores supply surrounds in standard, large and extra large roll configuration. Makes me wonder what AR woofer surrounds have. Definitely not XL, but maybe L?

One guy told me that surrounds sold as replacement for JBL 125A maybe used as the ones he had were not as stiff as the ones he sold for the AR 10 inch woofers.

Anyone here have input that might help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks like your research turned up a new batch of questions you may or may not ever get answers to.

Do you know *exactly* what you need for your AR90's? It's highly unlikely anybody who reads these posts knows either. The size is a simple matter. More difficult to define is the compliance characteristics. You could have two very different surrounds of the exact same od, id, roll size and thickness and have very different compliance properties simply due to the foam's different rheology and stiffness characteristics.

Here's another question: Did AR have any detailed specifications for the surrounds they used during any of the 'classic' era? If they did, perhaps some of the AR archivists who view the posts here could share them and then, you could pursue what you need with much more confidence instead of doubt.

It's all about the music

Carl

Carl's Custom Loudspeakers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have written before, I like the surround kits and support provided by M_Sound

http://www.citlink.net/~msound/

I bought a surround kit from Simply Speakers ONCE and found it to be inadequate. No shims or dust caps, and their glue is like contact cement--not the white stuff most prefer. Their response to my question about the shims and caps was something like "if we don't have them you don't need them."

I'm now strictly an M_Sound customer

Good luck

Kent

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Anyone here have input that might help?<

I almost certainly cannot help, but that's never stopped me from talking.

A few of us have gone round-and-round with similar issues with regard to just about every component. My advice is to get as much information as you can (sounds like you have) and then become philosophical about it, hold your nose, and jump-in.

AR themselves would change things mid-model. Woofer cone material would change (and I'll wager the surround did as well), capacitor brands, whether a single or parallel were used, even drivers (like ferrofluid or not) were changed without crossover changes.

My impression is that components got within x% of original spec and that was that. The only way I can think of for you to select the right surround would be to do a trial and error installation, then test.

Guys / gal, we need to buy a community "Woofer-Tester II" to pass-around.

Bret

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think if you check the archives, someone, possibly Ken or Tom presented detailed measurements of the freqeuncy response of 12" AR woofers refoamed by several different people and there were definite variations.

It seems rather frustrating but a fact of life that companies like AR routinely changed manufacturing procedures, material sources, even specifications not only without notice but without any model designation change either. They could have at least used a different suffix....AR3ac, AR3ad, AR3ae. Usually these can be tracked by the serial numbers...if the company is still in business. I've noticed this was done by manufacturers of other appliances like washing machines and air conditioners, adding a letter suffix to the serial number. It must be admitted that AR along with KLH were among the most consistant in maintaining overall performance standerds with the least unit to unit performance variations compared to their competitors....in their day. KLH claimed no more than +/- 1db (20%) variation from the prototype over their frequency range. Don't many if not most manufacturers just take vendor supplied hardware, assemble it, box it, and ship it out the door if it seems to work? Can small manufacturers afford incoming QC, random sample testing of their production units both as partial and completed assemblies, and both destructive and non destructive testing of their products? Today we have ISO 9000 and comparable standards from ANSI which assure the end user his unit will be as close as possible to the prototype if he buys from a manufacturer which complies with these standards. For some types of hardware including some military and industrial products, this is a must. IMO, the mere suggestion that a high fidelity loudspeaker system needs "breaking in" is proof positive that the manufacturer's QC stinks. It is an admission that the product is not only not ready to perform its intended function when it is shipped out the door but that it is unstable. How can the manufacturer know that his unit will perform within tolerence when it is broken in or that it will be broken in properly at all? If a break in for a product of this type is necessary for proper operation, it should be done at the factory under controlled conditions and then retested before release for shipment.

The changeover from cloth to foam surrounds was IMO an unfortunate choice. It has proven to be a less durable material which deteriorates completely over time. Early AR woofers and KLH drivers used cloth surrounds which did not rot and at most require resealing with an inexpensive easy to apply suitable product after decades of use. I also think the compliance of the foam woofers is lower than that of the original cloth woofers resulting in slightly high F3 but that hasn't prevented my AR9s from being a real room shaker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The changeover from cloth to foam surrounds was IMO an

>unfortunate choice. It has proven to be a less durable

>material which deteriorates completely over time. Early AR

>woofers and KLH drivers used cloth surrounds which did not rot

>and at most require resealing with an inexpensive easy to

>apply suitable product after decades of use.

I believe a number of us have come to the same conclusion.

Since there are virtually no woofers with the compliance characteristics of the old AR's being manufactured today, it follows that it would be hard to find replacement surrounds of the appropriate compliance.

Currently the best AR replacement surround, the common 3a replacement, is actually quite compliant with the original larger foam roll, but it is difficult to seal adequately. The original AR foam surrounds were coated with a sticky butyl compound sealant which is all but impossible to duplicate today without raising fs and compromising compliance characteristics. Trying to seal the 8 and 10 inch foam surrounds, that are probably already thicker than original, is a recipe for disaster. (BTW, I have found Armor-all, at best, to be a VERY temporary solution!) Cloth surrounds are easier to re-seal, if absolutely necessary.

Recently I conducted some comparisons between cloth surround 4x woofers vs their later, otherwise identical (replaced) foam surround counterparts. The foam surround woofers measured higher fs. Installed in the 4x cabinet, bass response, as well as midrange response, was subjectively inferior to the cloth surround version. Fc measured 5 to 7hz higher in each case. Consequently, as long as used cloth surround 4x woofers continue to be available, I will not use the foam surround variety in restorations.

If foam of the same type as that of the 3a replacement could have been found, the 4x numbers would probably have been better...although I still prefer the cloth surround AR-3/3a woofer to any of the later foam surround versions.

Roy

PS Old cloth surround KLH woofers can usually be found at decent prices. They are high quality work horses, and are great for any acoustic suspension speaker project, whether it be a restoration or DIY design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Roy;

(BTW, I have found Armor-all, at best,

>to be a VERY temporary solution!)

Temporary, as in what use application?

Cloth surrounds are easier

>to re-seal, if absolutely necessary.

>

Am I reading this right, you used ArmorAll on the foam surrounds?

I have read here that it is useful for the cloth surrounds only.

Two coats over a 24 hour period if my memory serves me right.

>Roy

>

>PS Old cloth surround KLH woofers can usually be found at

>decent prices. They are high quality work horses, and are

>great for any acoustic suspension speaker project, whether it

>be a restoration or DIY design.

I'll agree 100% with you here, Roy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Vern,

>Temporary, as in what use application?

Applied to a new foam surround. I was able to get a "slow" woofer return upon 2 initial applications, but it did not last more than a few days. Repeated applications were the same.

>Am I reading this right, you used ArmorAll on the foam

>surrounds?

>I have read here that it is useful for the cloth surrounds

>only.

It has been mentioned for foam as well. It is safe, is better than nothing, doesn't change fs, but is not a substitute for the original sealant.

I have had some success with Simply Speakers' "Foam Guard" when used very sparingly, but it really needs to be applied before installing the surround. This is so it can be easily flexed upon setting to prevent its tendency to stiffen the surround. I've used it on the inside of some 3a surrounds before installation with decent results. It raised fs 2hz and adequately sealed the surround. It works quite well on the outside of cloth surrounds.

I've experimented with various materials on cloth and foam. Some of it was horrible. I can't believe there are folks recommending stuff like "tacky glue" (diluted or otherwise) to treat ANY type of surround. It isn't bad for gluing the surround, but that is where it ends :-). Some substances raised fs 10 to 20 hz.

Soundminded has mentioned a sealant for cloth that is sold by, I believe, "Orange County Speaker" that I have not yet tested.

I haven't found anything for foam that I'm truly comfortable with.

Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I believe a number of us have come to the same conclusion.

>

>Since there are virtually no woofers with the compliance

>characteristics of the old AR's being manufactured today, it

>follows that it would be hard to find replacement surrounds of

>the appropriate compliance.

>

>Currently the best AR replacement surround, the common 3a

>replacement, is actually quite compliant with the original

>larger foam roll, but it is difficult to seal adequately. The

>original AR foam surrounds were coated with a sticky butyl

>compound sealant which is all but impossible to duplicate

>today without raising fs and compromising compliance

>characteristics.

While cloth surrounds hold up better and the deterioration of the urethane-foam surrounds notwithstanding, the foam surrounds were definitely superior in performance to the cloth surrounds -- not for reasons of compliance -- but for reasons of edge damping and lower noise during long excursions. Even the best cloth surrounds exhibit some noises during the back-and-forth motions. The tacky seal that AR used on the AR-3a ferrite woofer, and later on the AR-2ax, etc., was a butyl-latex mixture, but it was put on *not* for a better seal but to improve edge damping, once again. AR was interested in improving the overall performance of the woofers from the lowest frequencies through the upper-operating ranges, and the new cone materials and the urethane-foam surrounds definitely improved response flatness and distortion, across the band.

Trying to seal the 8 and 10 inch foam

>surrounds, that are probably already thicker than original, is

>a recipe for disaster. (BTW, I have found Armor-all, at best,

>to be a VERY temporary solution!) Cloth surrounds are easier

>to re-seal, if absolutely necessary.

>

Armoral is a water-based silicone treatment, and it was meant to soften (and be absorbed by) vinyl and rubber materials. When applied to the butyl-rubber-coated cloth surrounds, it softens them somewhat and closes the pores a bit for improved seal, but it does not last permanently. Eventually the material will dry out. Armoral was suggested for use with the cloth-surround AR-3 and AR-3a, and 10-inch and 8-inch cloth-surround woofers, but never the butyl-latex-coated 200003 woofer. In some cases the surrounds are too far gone for this to help, but I have had good results with dozens of AR-3 and AR-3a surrounds using the material.

>Recently I conducted some comparisons between cloth surround

>4x woofers vs their later, otherwise identical (replaced) foam

>surround counterparts.

I wasn't aware that there was ever a foam-surround AR-4x woofer that used the identical cone and skiver, etc., as the original cloth-surround version. I know there was a foam-surround woofer that used the same basic magnet, but I believe there were differences in the cone weight and thickness, etc., so if there were mass differences, a valid comparison would be difficult at best.

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>While cloth surrounds hold up better and the deterioration of

>the urethane-foam surrounds notwithstanding, the foam

>surrounds were definitely superior in performance to the cloth

>surrounds -- not for reasons of compliance -- but for reasons

>of edge damping and lower noise during long excursions. Even

>the best cloth surrounds exhibit some noises during the

>back-and-forth motions.

Maybe so, but I doubt any of us have experienced the alleged negative effects attributed to cloth surrounds. Hey, maybe the ORIGINAL AR foam surrounds were just peachy, but they are now shot. The variables involved with having to replace foam today gives the original cloth surrounds the edge IMO.

>The tacky seal that AR used on the

>AR-3a ferrite woofer, and later on the AR-2ax, etc., was a

>butyl-latex mixture, but it was put on *not* for a better seal

>but to improve edge damping, once again.

Have you ever tried to achieve the requisite "slow" return acoustic suspension woofer test on a new surround without some sort of sealant? ...Not possible with the 3a replacement surround, nor many of the other foam surrounds currently being sold.

>I wasn't aware that there was ever a foam-surround AR-4x

>woofer that used the identical cone and skiver, etc., as the

>original cloth-surround version. I know there was a

>foam-surround woofer that used the same basic magnet, but I

>believe there were differences in the cone weight and

>thickness, etc., so if there were mass differences, a valid

>comparison would be difficult at best.

If you recall, until recently we weren't even aware that the 4x ever used a foam surround woofer :-)!

I simply installed a foam surround on a 4x woofer that ORIGINALLY had a foam surround, and it did NOT perform as well as an identical (looking) 4x woofer with a cloth surround. I therefore find it prudent to use cloth surround 4x woofers if possible. My main point is having to install new foam surrounds introduces a possible negative variable to restoration...or maybe (say it ain't so!) those last foam surround 4x woofers weren't all that great.

I suppose I could wait for the foam to decompose a bit and test it again.

Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"While cloth surrounds hold up better and the deterioration of the urethane-foam surrounds notwithstanding, the foam surrounds were definitely superior in performance to the cloth surrounds -- not for reasons of compliance -- but for reasons of edge damping and lower noise during long excursions. "

In over 40 years of experience with KLH Model 6 and with admittedly far more limited experience with AR2a both of which have cloth surround woofers, I never noticed this problem. I will try to listen more attentively paying particular attention for it next time I listen to them. I always wondered why AR switched.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I always

>wondered why AR switched.

Me too...I don't believe I have ever heard anyone complain about AR's cloth surround alnicos. In fact just the opposite. It is the response of those woofers that established AR's reputation for superior bass response.

AR woofer suspensions became stiffer (lower compliance) as time went on with the foam surround woofers. That in itself would increase power handling as more powerful amps came into use, thus somewhat addressing concerns of damping at "high excursions". In my experience, one of the attributes of the very compliant cloth surround versions is how good they sound at much less than high volume.

I wonder how the switch to foam surrounds (and ceramic magnets, for that matter) affected manufacturing ease and/or costs.

Anyway, I still wouldn't mind having some of that sticky butyl latex stuff to play with, but I remember Tom saying that it can only be obtained in huge industrial sized quantities. AR seemed to think it was worth the cost of applying it.

Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I wonder how the switch to foam surrounds (and ceramic magnets, for that matter) affected manufacturing ease and/or costs."

I assumed that this was the real reason. I think it was harder to manufacture cloth surrounds to AR's tight tolerences and to meet their performance specs. I'd bet they lowered their reject rate when they switched. Performance is determined by both mechanical and pneumatic restoring forces. Originally mechanical suspensions of the accordian pleated type (which the AS design were originally intended to compete against) were very stiff and did not allow for low Fcs and linear low freq response. I think the foam suspensions were more linear and compliant. Interestingly, many "professional" speakers for sound reinforcement systems and the like still use them. They are undoubtedly more reliable than foam and very low frequency response in many applications in not required. They often cut off at around 40 hz. I also was surprised to see the down firing woofers in the Empire 9000s I acquired last year had accordian pleated surrounds. This is why they can still perform like new not having sagged after having sat horizontally for 40 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some opinions, from the manufacturing side of the fence:

1- Surrounds are a critical element of driver performance. The surround not only effects the bass parameters of a speaker, it also absorbs and reflects various cone vibrations throughout the frequency spectrum. Further, the surround often determines the response of a driver to peak signals.

2- Serious driver designers put much effort into the specifics of each particular surround. Material, treatment, thickness profile, curvature profile, exact method of attachment, etc., all come into play. There are thousands and thousands of different surround variations made, and they are generally not considered particularly interchangable.

3- Adhesives play a big role in driver response, much more than most people realize. A decent speaker factory checks its adhesives several times each day, to very fussy levels. Even variations within the same type of adhesive can cause a speaker to fail QC. So can adhesive application temperature and humidity.

4- Several times, I've seen entire production runs of drivers tossed out because of some detail in the shape of a surround that you would never be able to see by eye.

5- Having said this, most people are happy with the results of a "successful" refoam job. Issues like "edge termination dips" at 2,000 Hz, that so bother a manufacturer, are not on the refoamer's radar screen.

6- By all means, fix your speakers. I just can't endorse tossing nice pieces of metal and big magnets into the trash. But, don't expect original performance to exacting standards.

7- For the 90's, I would go for the most compliant replacement surround I could find.

8- Foam surrounds became popular for a variety of reasons, mostly related to manufacturing economics. Material cost itself wasn't a huge issue, but fabrication, handling and gluing were. Also, foam surrounds generally gave the designer more freedom to adjust and improve several aspects of driver performance, (upper midrange response, clipping distortion, sensitivity, etc). Much work has since gone into synthetic "rubber" materials to narrow this gap.

-k

www.kenkantor.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest radkrisdoc

I want to thank everyone here for their replies and ideas.

Mr. Kantor's post is fantastic. Precise and to the point, a much needed reality check for anyone who has no constraints spending money on speakers. Everyone has constraints, yes.....but for someone like me, I'd plunk my money down eventually for a good pair of speakers. That's how I have accumulated my audio gear. But that apart....the post opens up discussion as to what we can do toward these specific goals:

1. We can try and obtain historical information on AR "soft part" suppliers. That may or may not help in restoration, but nevertheless be interesting

2. Restoration as close to the original as possible will be a long process of trying to seek out and obtain information, not just through history but through some reverse engineering as well

3. In the meantime, it also opens up possibilities where one can use newer modern drivers in the same configuration - yes, its not the "real" deal. But I cannot resist the DIY'er in me! The aim in going through a DIY approach will of course be to make them sound as good as they can, keeping the diffraction efforts that the original design had in mind. Maybe switchable drivers? I have a pair of aluminum enclosures ready for the 8" LMR (see my previous posts). All I need is a baffle and my DIY experiment will begin. The baffle can duplicate the AR-9's or the 90's measurements; and maybe use the blanket too. Ultimately this will help in figuring out replacement drivers while we're trying to reverse engineer the woofer surrounds.

4. It's not necessary that reverse engineering need be done by me. There are ways around it, like approaching foam surround manufacturers. If the ones in the US dont cooperate or want huge orders, then we can of course approach the smaller ones outside the country, like Taiwan, China, Thailand or India, evaluating and making the best choice as to which source to go with cos QC maybe a concern then. Just a few ideas that I am throwing out there for now.

Once again, this will take quite some time, but I will get to it, slowly but surely. And please, if you have any info whatsoever let us all know!

Kris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Bret

>I think if you check the archives, someone, possibly Ken or Tom presented detailed measurements of the freqeuncy response of 12" AR woofers refoamed by several different people and there were definite variations.<

Right, it's been done a few times. I provided six, repaired multiple ways (re-coned, re-foamed, re-voicecoiled/formered, re-spidered) and two of them came back **looking** wonderful from Simply Speakers. The surround was all-wrong and the re-surrounding had been done with the spiders depressed as the "zero" point. I had to send those elsewhere to be re-repaired.

Now, the interesting thing is that the measurements Ken reported to us did not really show how bad this really was.

Four speakers went to Tri-State Loudspeaker. As I asked him to do, he experimented with one and it came back being the one that Ken said he might not use. The other three had varying degrees of repair. The other three were the best of the six. I had the Simply Speakers two reworked by Millersound, but those were not tested.

As far as I can tell from all the conversations I've had with several people who tested refoaming results, it would appear that the Tri-State speakers (AR-10pi original woofers) had the closest FS to their original numbers and seemed to have very similar response curves to one-another in Ken's tests. One of those speakers had a new former and voice coil in addition to a new surround and the other just had new foam. I'd say Tri-State did darn well under those circumstances.

Unfortunately, it took months and months and months to get the drivers from Tri-State. At one point I almost wrote them off - it was like nine months and the only contact I had was when I called, repeatedly.

Millersound **seems** to do the same sort of repair job. I haven't had one of my four come back "modified and screwed-up" from Millersound.

But again, unfortunately, these weren't tested in Ken's vice-of-truth.

But I think a Millersound speaker did make it to testing, I just don't recall the exact outcome.

I feel good about what Bill at Millersound did in each and every case I've asked him to fix something for me (I think I've sent him eight woofers by now). Best of all, he does it when he says he's going to do it.

I've long given-up on getting any of my speakers back in totally original state. Where woofer-refoaming is concerned, I've now confined my hope to getting the woofer back to the advertised Fs.

Bret

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Klaus,

I think you have nailed it!

I just received an order from Parts Express containing part #260-964 "Surround Kit for JBL 125A". They are the best I have ever seen for the AR 10" woofer. They are not porous, they are paper thin, VERY compliant, and have a slightly larger roll (like the 3a surround). I have surrounds from 4 other sources, none of which come close to these.

The only downside is that the dust caps that come with the kit are huge. If dust caps are going to be replaced, they should be ordered separately.

Attached is a photo of the JBL surround (on the right) compared to a surround which is sold by a popular AR repair site on Ebay.

Roy

PS I tried to contact Speakerworks.net, aka Speaker Works Northwest, by email and received no reply. My only other experience with them was when it took a week for them to respond to an order I placed, just to tell me the 3a surrounds were "back-ordered".

post-101150-1183687809.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...