AR Speaker trim ring

[Guest rek 2-3-4]

Most new speaker systems don't have the classic AR trim ring that surrounds the grille.

(I know, they also have 4 inch "woofers", aluminum cabinets built like coffins, and they all look the same, kind of like "tick-tacky houses", etc.)

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone here has tried to remove the trim to see if it actually has any impact on imaging?

There are times when the sound kind of gets "sucked into the boxes" on all my ARs.

I know it would be cruel and unusual punishment. But, if someone had a couple of non-recoverable cabinets...?

[Robert_S]

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone here has tried to remove the trim to see if it actually has any impact on imaging?

I'd guess, from looking at these images (from our library), that AR themselves came to consider the question of the sonic effect caused by an extruded frame edge:

And answered it thus:

Perhaps, before getting too brutal , you could try something from this fine selection! :

Robert_S

[Guest rek 2-3-4]

AHA!

Sad to say, I didn't keep up with AR speakers much past the mid 1970s. But it is interesting to see that they made the change.

What models/vintage are we looking at here? I'm about crazy enough to add another pair.

AND thanks for the answer!

[tysontom]

Most new speaker systems don't have the classic AR trim ring that surrounds the grille.

(I know, they also have 4 inch "woofers", aluminum cabinets built like coffins, and they all look the same, kind of like "tick-tacky houses", etc.)

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone here has tried to remove the trim to see if it actually has any impact on imaging?

There are times when the sound kind of gets "sucked into the boxes" on all my ARs.

I know it would be cruel and unusual punishment. But, if someone had a couple of non-recoverable cabinets...?

The cabinet molding on older AR speakers (such as the AR-3a) does not have any material effect on the sound if the speakers are placed back against the wall and you, the listener, are positioned well back into the reverberant sound field. Only if you are listening up close -- or fairly close -- do you get the interference effects of cabinet edge-molding, sound-output diffraction. If you are back in the room, and the room is fairly reflective, you should be getting a good percentage of reflected energy from the AR speakers and a smaller percentage of direct energy, with the effect of spaciousness and, for example, a reasonable facsimile of a concert hall. "Imaging" is not necessarily a part of that equation, but with smaller ensemble or solo music groups, there should still be an impression of accuracy and naturalness if you are positioned back in the listening environment. There are exceptions, but most dome tweeters don't particularly lend themselves to pinpoint "imaging." In any event, no one really knows the meaning of the term, so it might be a moot point. For example, do you truly sense "imaging" at a live performance? The real issue for a loudspeaker is to recreate, as accurately as possible, the original recording or performance without regard to such things as "imaging." For test purposes, some AR speakers were used without the grills or grill molding in place (see attached image of an AR-3a used for such purposes as Columbia University in 1968).

The engineering trend in later years was to do away with the large cabinet molding and make the front baffle surface as obstruction-free as possible. Further improvements were made in the form of foam or felt absorption pads on the front of AR speakers, such as the 1978 AR-9. It was considered by many that these changes improved the "imaging" of of these later speakers. On the other hand, don't look to the AR-3a for great "imaging." You are better off getting a speaker with much narrower dispersion and less spaciousness sound output to get the effect of "imaging." The AR-9 sort of struck a compromise in the "imaging" and "spaciousness" department. Ironically, the AR-LST was considered by many experts to be one of the most accurate loudspeakers ever designed (even Consumer Reports gave an unpublished 95% accuracy rating for this speaker, the highest ever given to a loudspeaker), and if there was ever a miserable case of so-called "imaging," it would be the AR-LST. So, the debate goes on....

--Tom Tyson

[Guest rek 2-3-4]

Tom,

Thanks for the detailed response. The picture of the "naked" and "rimless" AR-3 is interesting.

My AR-3a's are about 5 feet away from the back wall, having taken the place (so to speak) of my Mirage M-5si's (Bipolar speakers that require placement well away from the walls). To get the ARs to the wall requires a total rearrangement of my equipment: not an insignifcant task (5 power amps, receiver, preamp, turntable [maybe not the turntable since it's mounted on the wall], SACD, ALL the cable!). I've been holding off doing this until the carpet is replaced in my Man Cave. I may have to reconsider this schedule.

As to the imaging issue, I was used to being able to place depth and height of instruments with the Mirages, as I was trained to do by "THE MAGAZINES". But, when I think about it, I never have heard "placement" at a symphony concert, apart from left-right. Pretty much the same with opera, even when the singers move backstage. I never heard any ARs past the ones I now have. I believe I read a review of the LST somewhere, but can't recall any of the others.

So, now you've got me thinking about the rearrangement.

Verrry interesting!