AR-3 Production Years

[charger3834]

In what year was the AR-3 discontinued ?

[Steve F]

To the best of my recollection, the 3a was introduced in December 1967, and the 3 was continued alongside the 3a for a short time. I'd say the 3 was discontinued in 1968, so it had a decade-long run as top-of-the-line. When the 3 entered the market, it enjoyed a margin of ascendancy over its competition that has never been equaled, before or since, in terms of smooth response, wide dispersion, bass extension and lack of audible distortion. When it left the market 10 years later, it was still a superb speaker. That length of accomplishment is conceiveable today.

AR did offer to convert the 3 to the 3a for $90 per speaker, with the resulting new 3a carrying the full 5-year warranty.

[Steve F]

That length of

>accomplishment is conceiveable today.

>

That's INconceiveable!

[tysontom]

>To the best of my recollection, the 3a was introduced in

>December 1967, and the 3 was continued alongside the 3a for

>a short time. I'd say the 3 was discontinued in 1968, so it

>had a decade-long run as top-of-the-line. When the 3 entered

>the market, it enjoyed a margin of ascendancy over its

>competition that has never been equaled, before or since, in

>terms of smooth response, wide dispersion, bass extension

>and lack of audible distortion. When it left the market 10

>years later, it was still a superb speaker. That length of

>accomplishment is conceiveable today.

>

>AR did offer to convert the 3 to the 3a for $90 per speaker,

>with the resulting new 3a carrying the full 5-year warranty.

I looked through my price lists to see how long the AR-3 was still offered, and I saw it through 1972, but it was not in the '74 price list -- I don't have the '73 list, so, I would estimate it to be in the '72-73 time-frame. For all intents and purposes, however, the

AR-3 was discontinued the day the AR-3a was introduced in 1967 (I think October, 1967, officially, for the NYHFMS). Therefore, what Steve says about 1968 is fundamentally correct. A few diehards probably purchased AR-3's after the introduction of the AR-3a, primarily to match an existing AR-3 they already had, or because they resisted the AR-3a's additional cost ($250 vs. $225 in oil finishes). The Music Room in New York and Cambridge judged the "reception" of the new AR-3a vs. the AR-3 by allowing listeners to make hassle-free, sales-free assessments of each product. Marketing learned a great deal about this in that manner, along with direct sales figures.

What Steve says about the AR-3's fabled history is, I think, precisely correct. I don't think there has never been a loudspeaker that enjoyed such a stellar reputation during its lifetime as the AR-3. And during that period -- 1958 to 1967 -- most critics agreed that the AR-3 was the most accurate loudspeaker money could buy. Hirsch's description of the AR-3, "The sounds produced by this speaker are probably more true to the original program than those of any other commercially manufactured speaker we have heard," is probably the best description in a review at the time.

--Tom Tyson

[ar_pro]

Yes, the 3 and 3a were extraordinary accomplishements from a company that believed in the legitimacy of good design, and inherent responsibility to thir customers. Having been brought into the AR fold like so many others (our friends' fathers all had some combination of Acoustic Research, Dynaco, or McIntosh), it was easy to hear why owning an AR speaker was something to shoot for!

As an aside, I was much amused by "Stereophile" magazine's review of that early '90s AR3a clone...the editor (John Atkinson) actually owned up to never having heard an AR3a in his life! Imagine a "Car & Driver" editor who had never driven a Corvette - talk about a lack of credibility!

[charger3834]

Ar Pro,

I have to agree with you on the credabillity issue. I tend to think people in the audio industry should be more aware of AR, as their contributions were so substantial.

In my opinion, classic audio components are not given much respect in the audio industry. There is an underlying belief that new designs are inherenty superior.

Brad

[charger3834]

I noticed in the 1969 brochure that the AR-3 was still promoted along with the AR-1x and AR-1w. AR stated that it would " continue to be available to those listeners who prefer it to the 3a ." In the 1970 brochure, the only mention of the AR-3 was in a comparative speadsheet. I guess the AR-1x and AR-1w were dropped in 1970. Tom's probably right about the 1972 time frame for the AR-3.

[tysontom]

>I noticed in the 1969 brochure that the AR-3 was still

>promoted along with the AR-1x and AR-1w. AR stated that it

>would " continue to be available to those listeners who

>prefer it to the 3a ." In the 1970 brochure, the only

>mention of the AR-3 was in a comparative speadsheet. I guess

>the AR-1x and AR-1w were dropped in 1970. Tom's probably

>right about the 1972 time frame for the AR-3.

>

I think the AR-1W was dropped about the same time as the AR-3. The AR-1x -- not a great success to begin with -- was gone by 1970 or 1971, and was not in the 1972 price list.

--Tom Tyson