Newbie Just bought AR-2x at Yard S

[Guest]

I just bought a pair of ar2x at a church sale. The owner said he paid over $300 in 1968 for the pair. When I got them home I hooked them up and no mides or highs. Do the fronts come off of these speakers or do I need to remove the staples or cut the grills. What is the most likely cause. The wire is there between post 2 and T so it's not that. Is it most likely the pot ? or the drivers ? Thanks for any info you can give me on these. I would like to restore since they are appearance wise in great shape with all of the info still on the back of the cabinet. I'm a pro Photographer now but former Electronic Tech and Audio buff so don't be afraid to get technical. Thanks, Dave

[Guest dogmeninreno]

Typically the pots on the back of vintage AR speakers that control the mid and tweeters, get corroded. Can you get any sound if you fiddle with the pots with a signal coming in from the amp (very technical term "fiddle")..They can be cleaned or replaced. Try http//wwwlayne audio.com or simplyspeakers.com for replacements. Good luck! Dale in Reno

[Steve F]

I agree that bad pots are the likely culprits. This was without question the weak spot of old AR speakers.

It's very doubtful the original owner paid $300/pr. for these in 1968. The AR-2x had an "unfinished" price of $89 ea, and was $102 ea. in oiled walnut.

Are these the old or new 2x's? In 1970, a new version of the 2x was introduced which used the same 2 1/2" cone tweeter as the AR-4x, with a crossover point of 1200Hz.

The previous 2x used a 3 1/2" tweeter covered by a fiberglass damping pad and a mesh metal grille. It crossed over at 2000Hz.

This 3 1/2" driver was also the tweeter in the original AR-4 and was the midrange driver in all iterations of the AR-2ax series. I believe it was made by CTS, but Tom Tyson could confirm that. The 2 1/2" driver was made by AR, and was quite a good performer. The new 2x was a somewhat unheralded speaker, but it was smooth, neutral, and had the excellent bass of its AR 10" siblings.

[charger3834]

Just a couple more thoughts.

The old 2x also had a different woofer than the new 2x. The old 2x had a 10" cast aluminum frame/cloth surround woofer. The new 2x had the new 10" stamped steel frame with a foam surround woofer. The foam surrounds would need attention by now but, if yours are 1968 vintage you probably have the cloth surrounds.

Also I believe that the old 2x crossover was around 1400 hz not 2000hz. However, I would like to know if I am mistaken.

[Steve F]

>Just a couple more thoughts.

>

>The old 2x also had a different woofer than the new 2x. The

>old 2x had a 10" cast aluminum frame/cloth surround woofer.

>The new 2x had the new 10" stamped steel frame with a foam

>surround woofer. The foam surrounds would need attention by

>now but, if yours are 1968 vintage you probably have the

>cloth surrounds.

>

>Also I believe that the old 2x crossover was around 1400 hz

>not 2000hz. However, I would like to know if I am mistaken.

Dear Mr. Evans,

You are correct about the old 2x having a different woofer than the new 2x. The new 2x woofer was the same as in the new 2ax (post 1970, with the 3/4" tweeter).

The old 2x crossover was, in fact, 2000Hz. The 1400Hz figure is the woofer to midrange crossover in the new 2ax. But both the old 2ax and the old 2x crossed over from the woofer to the 3 1/2" driver (tweeter in 2x, midrange in 2ax) at 2000Hz. It's confusing to keep all this minutiae straight, but there it is.

[charger3834]

Steve,

Thanks a lot for clearing that up. I have often wondered about that crossover point, as I have both versions of the 2ax. I did know that the supertweeter's crossover point was lowered in 1970 from 7500hz to 5000 hz. I have also wondered why with all the differences in drivers and crossovers is the new 2ax not called the "2axy." I guess AR didn't figure they were sonically all that different for some reason.

Brad Evans

[Steve F]

>Thanks a lot for clearing that up. I have often wondered

>about that crossover point, as I have both versions of the

>2ax. I did know that the supertweeter's crossover point was

>lowered in 1970 from 7500hz to 5000 hz. I have also wondered

>why with all the differences in drivers and crossovers is

>the new 2ax not called the "2axy." I guess AR didn't figure

>they were sonically all that different for some reason.

>

>Brad Evans

Brad,

What is your impression of the two versions of the 2ax in an A-B comparison?

I agree with you regarding the name change--the new 2ax shared only the 3 1/2" mid with the earlier version. The woofer, tweeter, crossover, and even the logo were different. Yet the model number remained unchanged. My own theory is that the marketing people at AR must have felt that the "AR-2ax" name had built up some substantial marketplace equity by 1970, and they didn't want to risk changing it. It's similar to a car manufacturer when they introduce an all-new model with the existing name. This year's Honda Accord is all new, but it's still called an Accord, because people know and trust the name. The 2ax was AR's bread and butter mid-line speaker, so they may not have wanted to alarm their dealers or the public with the uncertainty of a "new" model. I'd love to hear from a former AR marketing executive about this.

Of course, just the opposite is true in audio today, where annual model changes are needed just to attract attention..

Steve F.

[charger3834]

Steve,

I am just in the process of rebuilding the pots on my old 2axs. So I will post an opinion when I have done a comparison. It would seem from the 2000 Hz crossover that the woofer has quite a bit of work to do. I would like to hear your opinion.

As for your marketing theory, that would also be my guess. It is however interesting that the 2ax and 2x are the only examples of this.

Consider this, the 4,4x and 4xa were all "bread and butter" models but, they had officially recognized model changes when sonically significant improvements were made.

One could also argue that AR made lots of smaller improvements to many models that went unrecognized ( woofers etc.) I feel that the 2ax is the most extreme example.

It could also be argued that AR was somewhat irresponsible. If a person were to buy two speakers in 1970 and one was a pre serial 125000 model and the other was a post 125000, would he really have a matched pair ??

In the 1970 brochure the change was not mentioned except if you analyzed the driver complement section or looked at the picture. However, an old set of 2axs were shown in the office of the General Manager at a New York radio station ( i.e. old logos). The "press comment" used was taken directly from older brochures and refered to older versions. In later brochures the change is refered to in the updated press comment. High Fidelity stated that " 1970 brings us a better than ever 2ax...."

I'm starting to feel like an obcessed Star Trek fan right about now. I guess the difference would be that speakers are real ! Perhaps we should have an AR convention !!

Brad

[ToastedAlmond]

Have it.......and they will come.

Toasted Almond

[Steve F]

>High Fidelity stated that " 1970 brings us a better

>than ever 2ax...."

>

>I'm starting to feel like an obsessed Star Trek fan right

>about now. I guess the difference would be that speakers are

>real ! Perhaps we should have an AR convention !!

>

>

VERY good point about a possible mis-matched pair of 2ax's. My older cousin's 3a's were of mixed heritage--one cast basket, alnico magnet, cloth surround woofer, one ferrite magnet, stamped basket, foam surround woofer. For 20 years he never knew, until I rebuilt them after he'd retired them in 1990.

You're also correct about the many small improvements that went by undocumented by a model change. Early 3a's crossed over at 575Hz, later ones at 525Hz. Early 5's crossed over at 650Hz; later ones at 550Hz. Early 6's crossed over at 1500Hz; later ones at 1800Hz. And so on.

The "...1970 brings us..." quote was by Larry Zide in American Record Guide, not the High Fidelity review. The High Fidelity review had such memorable "pull quotes" (as they're known in the industry) as "...Here is an excellent new speaker system with all the clarity and open sound of its costlier namesakes..."

Yes, it's an obsession, but it's healthy, harmless, and concerned with clever engineering and interesting marketing, all with the goal of reproducing music enjoyably in your home. What could be better?

Let's start planning that convention!

Steve F

[ToastedAlmond]

An obsession that keeps one off the streets, and is a lot better than boozing it up with the boys all the time. My wife knows exactly where I am when I have a day off, and the rest of the family doesn't.

Toasted Almond

[administrator]

Even though I am now in California, I would say the convention would have to happen in Boston. We would need lots of power and listening rooms. Maybe we could convince UMASS Boston to loan out some classrooms? They have nuclear bunker style walls ..

Mark

[ToastedAlmond]

Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland may also fit that bill! Picatinny Arsenal here in Zoo Jersey may also do.

Toasted Almond

[charger3834]

Steve,

Thanks for the correction on the American Record Guide Thing. I should have looked at the brochure before typing. I do think that your "market equity" theory is intrinsicly correct. Perhaps the best evidence of this is the fact that the AR-3 was not discontinued upon the introduction of the AR-3a. AR stated that it "would continue to be available to to those listeners who prefer it to the AR-3a." Would you happen to know what year the AR-3 was finally discontinued ?

Reguarding the 2ax, I think AR probably started by updating the woofer. Maybe there was some difference in response, so they adjusted the crossover to compensate. Then they probably figured they should upgrade the top end too. I guess they figured it was still essentially the same sound and decided to keep the name. They probably never thought that people across the continent would be having this discussion 32 years after the decision was made ! Roy Allison could probably answer this question for us.

As for a convention, it would have to be done right. The location should probably be in the New England area. I live in Alberta and would have to make a vacation out of it. I traveled New England a couple of years ago a enjoyed it. Its too bad I missed out on the old AR music rooms.

Brad

Brad

[Guest]

..."Roy Allison could probably answer this question for us." Is there a chance of Roy contributing? It would be great!

[tysontom]

>

>One could also argue that AR made lots of smaller

>improvements to many models that went unrecognized ( woofers

>etc.) I feel that the 2ax is the most extreme example.

>

This is certainly true of virtually every industry. Changes, enhancements and improvements at AR were constantly being made; but frankly, these differences were subtle and most people would not notice the difference.

>It could also be argued that AR was somewhat irresponsible.

>If a person were to buy two speakers in 1970 and one was a

>pre serial 125000 model and the other was a post 125000,

>would he really have a matched pair ??

>

"Irresponsible," well, not really. I can't really imagine AR ever being that way, at least from the consumer's point of view. To the best of my knowledge, AR did not intentionally ship out pre-1970 AR-2ax's with post-AR-2ax's in the same shipping consignment. Besides, the grill cloth material and logo emblems were entirely different, and a customer would immediately recognize that he had two different animals. On the contrary, AR was overly consumer-oriented, and if anything, they probably neglected dealers (AR was tough on dealers, enforced stict rules, and this might be considered "irresponsible," but when you own one-third of the entire US domestic speaker market as did AR in the mid-to-late 60s, you can afford to be consumer-oriented). If you think of AR in terms of the quality and performance of their products, their almost unique "full" 5-year warranty, the durability and reliability of their products, the honesty in presenting their products to the public, the value-per-dollar represented in each AR product, etc., it's hard to imagine AR being irresponsible to the end-user.

Incidentally, AR never ever sold anything under the term "matched pair," and that term never entered the marketing lexicon at AR until some of the much-later, "mirror-imaged" speakers such as the AR-303's arrived. AR constantly made minor improvements, enhancements to its speakers, and unless you had consecutive serial numbers, you are likely to have some minor innocuous difference from one speaker to another. It's basically pretty academic, however, because you probably could not tell that difference unless you measured the speaker in an anechoic chamber.

>Perhaps we should have an AR convention !!

An AR convention, to coincide with AR's 50th, would be extremely timely if held in October, 2004.

--Tom Tyson

[tysontom]

Oops... before Steve jumps on me, I meant to say in my previous message that the "logo was entirely different." AR did use the beige-linen grill after about 1964, and that applied to the pre-125,000 ser. no. 2ax's. One notable difference was the brass logo emblem, with "AR-2ax" rather than the dual "AR" and "a" emblems.

--Tom Tyson

[tysontom]

One further insignificant detail: the "beige" grill, to which I refer in the past two messages, was actually subtly different in the early (1964-1966) AR-2ax's, and the grill material was slightly darker and coarser version of the infamous beige linen. After 1965, the AR-4x and AR-2x and AR-2ax used the later "good" version of that grill, which was also used in late-60's AR-5's, AR-3a's and then in the AR-6, AR-7, AR-8 and LST variants.

--Tom Tyson

[charger3834]

Tom,

I now see your point on the grill cloths. One of my 60's AR-2ax's has this darker/ more coarse cloth

[Steve F]

>"Oops... before Steve jumps on me..."

>

>--Tom Tyson

Tom,

You know I would never do that!

Regarding possible mis-matched 2ax's, I agree that AR would never have intentionally shipped a mixed batch of speakers to a dealer. But there is the real possibility of a dealer having old and new products in their stockroom, and inadvertently giving a customer one of each. Unless the cartons were distinctively marked or had a different printing design--which I don't think was the case, as I recall--a retail salesperson going into the back room to get two speakers for a customer would have no way of knowing which was "old" and which was "new" during the transitional period when they had both products. The customer, of course, would find out soon enough when they got home and opened up the speakers.

Expecting every salesperson to be intimately familiar with a manufacturer's serial number sequence is just unrealistic, as I know from first-hand experience. So it can and does happen occasionally, despite the best intentions. The best thing a manufacturer can do, other than change the printing artwork on the carton, is to put an identifying sticker or magic-marker checkmark on the carton in a conspicuous location. That way, a retailer can tell at a glance which product is which. Even then, there are no guarantees.

[charger3834]

I figured that " irresponsible" comment might get a rise out of Tom.

I was just wondering what AR would have told the dealers about the new 2ax. Their brochure did not promote an all new 2ax.

Would one of each version really be that bad ?

[tysontom]

>>"Oops... before Steve jumps on me..."

>>

>>--Tom Tyson

>

>Tom,

>You know I would never do that!

>

Steve, thanks for saying that, but I know you are a "stickler" for AR details, and I would expect you to ferret out any discrepancies on my part. I wouldn't want it any other way, incidentally!

>Regarding possible mis-matched 2ax's, I agree that AR would

>never have intentionally shipped a mixed batch of speakers

>to a dealer. But there is the real possibility of a dealer

>having old and new products in their stockroom, and

>inadvertently giving a customer one of each. Unless the

>cartons were distinctively marked or had a different

>printing design--which I don't think was the case, as I

>recall--a retail salesperson going into the back room to get

>two speakers for a customer would have no way of knowing

>which was "old" and which was "new" during the transitional

>period when they had both products. The customer, of course,

>would find out soon enough when they got home and opened up

>the speakers.

>

I think this is correct, that AR would not consciously ship out the two different versions in the same consignment, but a dealer could have both in the shop at any given time during the transition. The color of the "AR-2ax" printed on the shipping carton was different for the two vintages, one was reddish color, and the other was pink, I think, but an indiscriminate salesperson could easily mix the two. You would think that dealers would have been cautioned not to mix the two, because the end-user would almost surely come back and demand two of the same! I will check with my old friend who was sales manager at AR during this time. It's been a long time since he left this industry, and he has forgotten a lot, but perhaps he will remember this occurrance. The fact that customer satisfaction was foremost in AR's mind, I am sure that the dealers were cautioned and forewarned against mixing the two vintages.

--Tom Tyson

[tysontom]

>

>I figured that " irresponsible" comment might get a rise out

>of Tom.

>

Oh yea -- you know me -- always protecting the reputation of AR! You wouldn't believe the letters I have written over the years taking issue with critics of AR. Of course, AR was anything but "perfect," but I think never intentionally irresponsible.

>I was just wondering what AR would have told the dealers

>about the new 2ax. Their brochure did not promote an all new

>2ax.

>

There was a brochure that showed the new AR-2ax, but it was not put forth as an "all-new" design. An AR-2ax ad, however, did speak of the new version, "The AR-2ax: an evolutionary new speaker system."

>Would one of each version really be that bad ?

Not really. Both speakers were very balanced and smooth, with the newer version having slightly better dispersion. Both sounded very similar, but you could hear the slight differences if you were in the near field and switched left-to-right-to-left, etc., but not so much if you were in the far field. The bottom-end was nearly identical, with slight differences in the upper bass.

--Tom Tyson