AB TECH 11-10 PI TWEETERS VS ORIGINAL TWEETERS

[fedeleluigi]

Has anyone compared the present AB TECH tweeters p.n. 12000840 to the original AR 10 Pi / 11 tweeters p.n. 200011-1?

In the file "Restoring the AR-3a "all these tweeters can be seen:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/_Media/...the-ar-3a-2.pdf

(in these exellent work, the present AB TECH tweeter is the one of Fig. A.27 at page 33, the original AR 10 Pi /11 tweeters are the ones of Fig. A.21, A.22, A.24 at page 32).

What are the sonic differences between all these tweeters? Which do you prefer?

Anyway, In the work "Restoring the AR-3a " the TONEGEN tweeters, made as sevice replacement for AR 10 Pi and 11 with part # 1200011-1, do not appear (I saw several Tonegen 1200011-1 boxes full with these tweeters and all boxes had  "made in Japan" printed on them). I have always seen the tweeter in Fig A.24 only labelled as 200011-1 and never as 1200011-1 . As far as I know only the Tonegen tweeters had the p.n 1200011-1 and there is no photo of them in "Restoring the AR-3a " .

AB TECH also supplied a tweeter that had as p.n.1200084 AB and that had a foam on the faceplate (probably it superseded the 1200011-1). Do anyone know the producer of the old 1200084 AB and the producer of the present 1200840 and if there are sonic differences between these two tweeters with very similar part number. The present AB TECH tweeter (p.n.1200840), look more similar to the original AR 9, 90, 91, 915 tweeters (Fig. A.25, A.26) than to original AR 10 Pi and 11 tweeters.

Moreove in 1995 I bought a pair of tweeters for AR 10 PI that are labelled 12002111. They look very very similar to the Tonegen tweeters (1200011-1). I do not know their manufacturer but until now, in my opinion, they are the best sounding tweeters made for AR 11 and 10 PI I ever listened to. Probably the original AR ferrofluid tweeters suffer from "dry ferrofluid problems" today.

Any information and personal opinion on the sound of all these tweeters will be appreciated.

Until now I have heard the original tweeters p.n. 200011-1 (A.21 and A.24 in the file "Restoring the AR-3a "), the Tonegen p.n. 1200011-1 and the tweeters with p.n 12002111 ( I do not know the producer of the latters. Any information on them will be appreciated). Today, as I've already said, in my opinion, the best sounding are the tweeters labelled 12002111.

Now I'm very curious about the sound of the present AB TECH sevice replacement.

Thank you in advance for any information.

Luigi

 

 

[Diamonds&Rust]

Has anyone compared the present AB TECH tweeters p.n. 12000840 to the original AR 10 Pi / 11 tweeters p.n. 200011-1?

Moreove in 1995 I bought a pair of tweeters for AR 10 PI that are labelled 12002111. Aesthetically they are very very similar to the Tonegen tweeters (1200011-1). I do not know their manufacturer but until now, in my opinion, they are the best sounding tweeters made for AR 11 and 10 Pi.

Any information on all these tweeters and any personal opinion on the sound of them will be appreciated.

Until now I have heard the original tweeters p.n. 200011-1 (A.21 and A.24 in the file "Restoring the AR-3a "), the Tonegen p.n. 1200011-1 and the tweeters with p.n 12002111 ( I do not know the producer of the latters. Any information on them will be appreciated). As I already said, in my opinion the best sounding are the tweeters labelled 12002111.

Now I'm very curious about the sound of the present AB TECH sevice replacement.

Luigi,

It's taken me a long time to respond because I'm not sure what your 12002111 tweeters were / are.

I haven't needed to use an ABTech replacement in a 10pi, so I can't answer that question directly, either.

Trying to be helpful even without direct experience, I'll tell you that a number of people here have not cared-for the current ABTech replacement even after doing crossover modifications - but those were 3as, not 10pis. You can see some of their comments by looking through various tweeter threads.

You will not see some "off-line" comments made to me. Essentially nobody is delighted with the tweeters. Some people like them compared to their original tweeters, even without the crossover modifications. I'll just say that I believe those people are far less critical than I believe you are.

For a long while there was a replacement tweeter sold that looked a lot like 1200011-1 labeled A.24 in the restoration document - only the foam was grey-ish. The driver was not black underneath, but aluminum or steel colored. I'm sorry, but I don't remember the number. Maybe someone can help us out with that.

I've been able to compare that grey tweeter with the original 200011 (A.21) and the black, no foam, 1200011-1 (A.22).

Of the three, my preference is the original 200011. I found the replacement tweeter I tried downright screeeeetchy through the crossover area.

That tweeter worked somewhat better in an AR-90 (crossed over at a higher frequency) but seemed a little subdued for a 90.

The (A.22) tweeter, which was shipped "next" for a while isn't at all unpleasant, but it lacks (present day) the extension of the original. I can't say if that's because the ferrofluid is gumming-up from the years or if the tweeter was always like that but I didn't notice when they were new because the sources didn't have as much high frequency information as CDs do. It's just impossible to say.

The most surprising part of all of this to me is how much difference the choice of tweeter makes even though it contributes so little in terms of total speaker output. Maybe that's why some people don't seem too picky about it and will just take whatever driver they can buy that fits in the cabinet, drop it in, and call it "good."

Now a rant: IF I've been told correctly, a speaker designer will design the system with driver parameters and crossover parameters and cabinet parameters, order some prototype or "sample" components, and cobble together their design. Then they'll tweak a crossover component, make a minor change in a driver, do listening tests (and lab tests) with damping materials, etc, and when the final product design is finished, they order the parts and start building the system for real.

What that means to me is that only the first run of any design sounds the way the designer (or team) heard it. Only that first batch with the same drivers and the same stuffing in the same cabinets with the same crossovers could possibly sound "right." If a driver then changes with no crossover changes, and the driver isn't absolutely identical in its output to the original, it may be possible that there is an improvement, but probably not. When the woofer gets changed, too... it's getting tough to think it sounds like the original. Then the midrange changes... but the crossover doesn't change to compensate for small changes in the drivers.

Now the question is, am I right to say that the original is righter than the versions that follow?

I prefer Phil Collins' version of "Tommorrow Never Knows" to the original Beatles' recording. Don't listen to me.