Jump to content

How did AR's top dogs stack up?


Guest winters860

Recommended Posts

Guest winters860

The AR-3, AR-3a and AR-9 get brought up a lot because they were impressive speakers that sold a lot of units. However, there were A LOT of top dog speaker made at AR over nearly thirty years that shared a common family resemblance - a version of their 12" woofer with dome mids and tweeters. Most of the models were straightforward 3-way designs, though a few were more complex.

What are your impressions of these models? How do they stack up against each other? Did you prefer their less glamous 10" cousins with similar mid and high arrangements?

AR 12" designs with dome mids and tweeters

AR-3 (1957-1969)

AR-3a / AR-3a Improved (1967-1976)

AR-LST (1972-1976)

AR-pi/One (1974-1975, obscure UK model)

AR-11 (1977-1979)

AR-10pi (1977-1979)

AR-9 (1978-1982)

AR-91 (1979-1982)

AR-58S (1981-1983)

AR-9LS / AR-9LSi (1982-1985)

AR-98LS / AR-98LSi (1982-1985)

AR-78LS / AR-78LSi (1982-1985)

AR 10" designs with dome mids and tweeters

AR-5 / AR-5 Improved (1969-1976)

AR-LSTII (1974-1975)

AR-90 (1979-1982)

AR-92 (1979-1982)

Cross-posted on Audiokarma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd suspect the biggest problem will be finding anyone who has heard all these speakers in a way that they could be compared! The only 12" speaker listed that I heard (and bought) at the time was the 3a. I sold my 2AXs to buy the 3As. Those were the only AR speakers I owned in that era. I wanted LSTs at the time - because of AR advertising, not because I heard them sound better. Heck, I never even SAW an LST until I bought a pair last year!

Now, of course, since all those speakers are quite old, as has often been mentioned, it is impossible to determine what any of them sounded like when new. I have a pair of 3As (bought in '06) and the pair of LSTs. Both have new caps and are otherwise completely original and all drivers work equally well based on listening to them individually. Again, they are 30 years old and whether they sound as they were designed to, I can't say. I can say that IN THEIR CURRENT CONDITION, the LSTs are clearly more impressive than the 3As. Whether impressive means they sound better, who knows. The LSTs certainly have much more presence and soundstage. They also go a bit lower, though I don't understand how this can be since they are essentially the same drivers/xovers for the woofer.

In the mid 80s I auditioned a pair of 9's but I don't remember anything about them except that I must not have been all that impressed since I didn't buy them, buying a pair of Nestorovic 5AS instead. At the time my original 3As were long gone so they were not "in my ear" as I auditioned other speakers.

It will be interesting to see the results of your question...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The AR-3, AR-3a and AR-9 get brought up a lot because they were impressive speakers that sold a lot of units. However, there were A LOT of top dog speaker made at AR over nearly thirty years that shared a common family resemblance - a version of their 12" woofer with dome mids and tweeters. Most of the models were straightforward 3-way designs, though a few were more complex.

What are your impressions of these models? How do they stack up against each other? Did you prefer their less glamous 10" cousins with similar mid and high arrangements?

These are the only 12" woofer models that I have heard (all when new):

AR-3 (1957-1969)

AR-3a (1967-1976)

AR-LST (1972-1976)

AR-11 (1977-1979)

AR-10pi (1977-1979)

AR-303 (1995-1998)

They all had a definite "family resemblance," with the major changes I could discern being a trend toward stronger high frequencies, which I actually didn't care much for. If I had a choice with no constraints of cost or room, my choice would be the 3a or the LST, but I certainly wouldn't turn any of them away if someone left them on my doorstep.

My first pair of AR speakers, bought new in 1975, were the 2ax. I auditioned 3a's and 5's along with them (the dealer didn't have LST's available to demo, and they were out of my price range anyway), and chose the ones I did because I didn't hear enough of an improvement in sound to justify paying more for the others when I was living in a small apartment. If I'd had any idea that 30+ years later I'd still have the same speakers, I would have taken the 3a's (I have now gone back and done that, or at least I will have when the current project speakers are fully refurbed).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are your impressions of these models? How do they stack up against each other? Did you prefer their less glamous 10" cousins with similar mid and high arrangements?

Hey Joe

I have/have heard these speakers:

AR 12" designs with dome mids and tweeters

AR-3a (1967-1976)

AR-3a Improved (1974-1976)

AR-LST (1972-1976)

AR-11 (1977-1979)

AR-10pi (1977-1979)

AR 10" designs with dome mids and tweeters

AR-5 (1969-1976)

AR-LSTII (1974-1975)

AR-90 (1979-1982)

AR-92 (1979-1982)

Your question is good, but not easyly answered, in my opinion, but I will give it a shot.

With the excemption of the LST, the 12" design speakers have of course similarities: I find the paper dome tweeter of the 3a/3a Improved a bit more airy and "pleasent" sounding compared to the later fabric dome tweeter in the 10Pi and 11. Although very similar, I prefer the 3a Improved to 3a, due to a more precise room definition. The 5 is very similar sounding to the 3a, but the woofer/mid-range blend in with each other just a tad better, on the expense of the lowest octave or so.

The 10Pi and 11 are again both very similar and at the same time quite different. I think it was Bret that once wrote that the 11 is the most west-coast like of the AR speakers, and I do understand what he means; very direct and present, but also very transparent sounding. I like the precision and dynamics of the 11 very much, especially with more rythmic music. The 10Pi is warmer in the sound at the cost of some of the precision, marginally but clearly different. The 10Pi cross-over is very difficult to get to and to restore, and you need to "work" on the DC blocking big cap/resistor in the input circuit, to get the best out of the 10Pi (as is the case with the LST/LST-2).

My listenning room is too small for the LST, so I actually prefer the LST-2 to the bigger brother. Surprisingly full bass from a 10" woofer speaker, almost as full sounding as the LST. The front firing mid-range in the LST-2 probably also contributes to its superior sound to the LST played in a small room. My LST-2 is stiill all original (except the woofer surround), so midrange/high range is still not as open as on the LST, but I contribute that to the old capacitors. It still sounds absolutely amazing for its age with 30 years plus components in the cross-over. Both the LST and the LST-2 is characterised by the very

broad perspective of the sound, however, to some degree at the expense of definition of the depth (at least in the setting I have).

The 90 and 92 has very similar properties in mid and high range, but with a much fuller and powerfull low range from the 90. I kind of like like the sound from the "basket" mid-range (3a, 10Pi and 11) better than the open midrange from the 9x series, it does not have the same kind of magic. The 90 is, due to the two side firing woofers, a bit more critical regarding placement in the listenning room.

I hope this makes sense.

BRgds Klaus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Klaus/Genek one thing I would ask re your "comparison." Are you comparing the sound of these AR speakers directly, as in A/B-ing them or are you comparing your "memory" of the different speakers you heard at different times?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Klaus/Genek one thing I would ask re your "comparison." Are you comparing the sound of these AR speakers directly, as in A/B-ing them or are you comparing your "memory" of the different speakers you heard at different times?

3, 3a, 5 and 2ax were direct A/B/C/D comparisons (actually, toss in E/F for the KLH 5 and 6, which I was also considering at the time). The others would be more or less comparisons between the speaker in question and my "memory" of my pair of 2ax's at home that same day. I did hear the 10pi and 11 together against each other, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you comparing the sound of these AR speakers directly, as in A/B-ing them or are you comparing your "memory" of the different speakers you heard at different times?

In my case a mix, I have A/B'ed 10Pi/11, 3a Improved/11, LST/11, 3a/5, maybe more combinations, I do not recall now. I have definitedly A/B'ed my 90 with something, but I do not remember what.

BRgds Klaus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest winters860
In my case a mix, I have A/B'ed 10Pi/11, 3a Improved/11, LST/11, 3a/5, maybe more combinations, I do not recall now. I have definitedly A/B'ed my 90 with something, but I do not remember what.

BRgds Klaus

I'd be interested in hearing anyone's thoughts on the AR-3a vs. the AR-90.

I have pairs of both models next up for restoration and I'm anxious to try them. I'm afraid I don't have the room to make the 90 happy, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 3 sounds very nice, but veiled in comparison to the 3a. The 3a has a cleaner midrange and clearer treble. The treble in the 3a is also decidedly more extended off axis and slightly more extended on axis.

In a small to moderately sized room, the 5 actually sounds better than the 3a overall. The bass of the 5 intregrates with the room better than that of the 3a, which tends to overpower small to moderately sized rooms. You do lose the absolute bottom octave of bass with the 5, but what bass you do hear is tighter and better balanced in comparison to the midrange and treble. The 5 is also more efficient and is an easier load to drive for most amplifiers.

The 2ax is a fine sounding speaker in its own right and only suffers in direct comparison with the 5 and 3a due to a cone midrange, which sonically does have an subtle audible signature of its own. Less dispersion off axis, less detail on axis- but again only appearant in direct comparison.

The 93 is an updated 3a (12in woofer, dome mid and tweeter). The woofer is essentially the same as that of the 3a/LST/10/11 but in a slightly bigger cabinet. The crossover, mid and tweeter are based upon 9 series technology and thus represent at least 1 to 2 generation later designs.

Sonically the 93 does not have the outstanding dispersion of the 3 series, but is more extended and forward on axis. The mid and tweeter levels are much closer, which helps accuracy when listened to in the relatively near field. There is a family resemblance to the 3/3a/5, but you can definately tell that the 93 was designed to sound more "modern". Sonically it sounds like many other speakers of the era, albiet with better bass. If it weren't an AR, and owned by my father I probably would not have given it a second listen.

To my ears the 5 is best overall sounding of the classic AR speakers, but the 3a shines in its own right when positioned and driven correctly.

I grew up listening to AR speakers. My father had a pr of 3a and then 93 for many years. I had a pair of 5 in HS, College and beyond, and I have recently aquired a pair of 3a. Currently, between my father and I, we have 2 pr of 3a, 2 pr of 2a, 2pr of 2ax, 2 pr of 5 and a pr of 93.

Hope this helps.

Best,

Ross

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a preference for AR's ground-breaking designs (AR-3 and AR-9), as opposed to the evolutionary, or cosmetic re-designs of previous models (3a, 10pi, 11).

The AR-3 with the cast frame woofer defined LF response in a bookshelf system, and the 9 was just better in every way from what had come before.

I've excluded the AR-1 because of the non-AR Altec upper-range driver, and the LST, for its roots in professional sound reproduction.

Full agreement on the comments regarding the AR-5 in certain-sized rooms. The 3a needed space to sound its best, and AR was smart to provide a less-expensive system with almost identical attributes that would perform better in smaller rooms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I have a preference for AR's ground-breaking designs (AR-3 and AR-9), as opposed to the evolutionary, or cosmetic re-designs of previous models (3a, 10pi, 11)."

Extremely interesting take. Certainly a valid outlook.

For myself, I've done extensive 2ax-5-3a A-B-C'ing, and extensive 11-91-LST-2 A-B-C'ing. After 35+ years of living with and comparing, evaluating, and analyzing AR speakers over and over, I'm using 3a's in a small room as my main music speakers. I could have any of them I wanted, but 3a's are it for me. The room is 11 x 14 with an irregular-height cathedral ceiling (gotta love those prime numbers and non-repeating room dimensions!), I'm using 80w RMS x 2 into 4 ohms, and volume is low-to-moderate at all times.

Beautiful, smooth, natural, uncolored. Just as the designers intended.

Steve F.

(BTW, I wish I knew what Ross means when he speaks of the "93." No foreign or domestic AR that I know of has that model designation and is an 'updated 3a.')

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(BTW, I wish I knew what Ross means when he speaks of the "93." No foreign or domestic AR that I know of has that model designation and is an 'updated 3a.')

Hi Steve

The 93 is the left one, it is in the French brochure in the library. Two 8" side firing woofers.

BRgds Klaus

post-101646-1223714950.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Klaus,

I think we're all well aware of the AR "sock" models, the 93 and 94.

Ross referred to a 93 that was an upgraded 3a, a 12" domed 3-way. I'm not aware of any such "93", either in the US or overseas. Perhaps it was just a typo and he meant 91 or 92, but he said 93 several times. The actual 93 was certainly no 3a upgrade--it was a completely different design.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ross referred to a 93 that was an upgraded 3a, a 12" domed 3-way. I'm not aware of any such "93", either in the US or overseas. Perhaps it was just a typo and he meant 91 or 92, but he said 93 several times. The actual 93 was certainly no 3a upgrade--it was a completely different design.

You're right, neither am I, it must be a 91, since the 92 has a 10" woofer.

BRgds Klaus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 93 is an updated 3a (12in woofer, dome mid and tweeter). The woofer is essentially the same as that of the 3a/LST/10/11 but in a slightly bigger cabinet. The crossover, mid and tweeter are based upon 9 series technology and thus represent at least 1 to 2 generation later designs.
(BTW, I wish I knew what Ross means when he speaks of the "93." No foreign or domestic AR that I know of has that model designation and is an 'updated 3a.')

When writing of the "93", I'd guess that Ross had the AR-91 in mind.

Robert_S

page5_large.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the 91 makes more sense.

I've owned a pair, and was very satisfied with their performance - not so much with their appearance.

The cosmetic trend in loudspeakers had long shifted to requiring the drivers to be visible, and present a satisfying appearance - this was the polar opposite of what AR had established with its initial offerings.

It used to be impossible to pull the grill cloth from an AR speaker without damaging it, and if you were able to remove it, you were confronted with three butt-ugly drivers, black electrical tape, and a painted plywood. Bleh.

Clearly, the 91 was designed to look good without the cloth, but in so doing, lost its purity of design - of form following function.

That vinyl sticker looked cheesey (sad to say, they're all over the Vertical Series), and the plastic decorative trim ring around the woofer is awful - like something from a Sears rack system.

Tragically, AR was trying to (drumroll) put lipstick on a pig! Unlike JBL, who had long-manufactured drivers that were industrial-beautiful, AR's were anything but, and the resultant attempts to pretty them up were lacking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...