Stereophile Review of AR3a...

[soundminded]

SM, I think you're spending too much time lurking here. You are beginning to wander all over the place. First me, then Z, then Jim and finally, the never-ending tiresome Stereophile bashing - boring.

Oh, I forgot, Praise be to Mr. Robert Parker.

"Praise be to Mr. Robert Parker"

Yes, praise be to Mr. Parker. Someone who sacrificed a legal career to publish an independent informed opinion that flew in the face of a mountain of vested financial interests that had every reason to want to stop him from wrecking their scam. Next time you are in a wine store and look at one of those tags called "Shelf Talkers" which give a quick summary of his opinion or that of Wine Spectator (the only two I trust) or you drink a bottle of wine that tastes far better than its price suggests it should, you'll have him to thank.

So you take Stereophile Magazine at face value. For me this site has been a refuge from their bull. Why do I feel like we are on the eve of an invasion?

[Zilch]

Why not at least force them to agree to leave something of far greater financial value with you as collateral which they will agree to forfeit in exchange if your speakers are not returned in satisfactory condition? Let's if they are as trusting of you as you claim to be of them.

Oh, MAN, I ain't touchin' that one.

I agree with Carl:

SM, I think you're spending too much time lurking here. You are beginning to wander all over the place. First me, then Z, then Jim and finally, the never-ending tiresome Stereophile bashing - boring.

If you spent less time makin' stuff up and takin' pot shots at every post, and instead put more effort into actually DOING something, you might not be so far behind.

[Note I said "Might...." ]

[Pete B]

The level of paranoia in here is getting creepy! LOL

And in fighting among the fans!

Just to be clear, I am fine with the Stereophile people pushing any of my

speakers (should they decide to borrow them) using their own judgement,

if something fails then it was probably near end of life and it can be

fixed - not a problem. These are not one of a kind treasures after all!

I happen to believe that if you are going to begin to explore the max-SPL

capabilities of the Advents or 3a one should use a 200W/ch high current

amp as a minimum.

[genek]

Seems to me it wouldn't hurt to consult the owner manual in the library and install the fuses recommended by AR before letting anyone conduct any testing on the speakers. Escpecially since FR testing is specifically one of the applications cited by AR as possibly requiring fuse protection.

[Guest bocoogto]

The article had better be published! I subscribed to Stereophile this week for the first time in 18 years. I suspect the reviewers may consider the AR3a much inferior to today's speakers. Does anyone think that today's AR-branded systems can equal the accuracy of the AR3a? How about today's Polk, Electrovoice, Infinity, or other "old" name companies? Their offerings today don't bring rave reviews from publications like the AR3a, Polk SDA's, Infinity Quantum & Reference series, or Electrovoice Patricians or Georgians.

AR3a's sold for $225 each in walnut, cherry, or Oak. In today's dollars, wouldn't that be over $1000 each? I hope the reviewers cite some examples of speakers on the market today that equal or surpass the AR3a in accuracy in that price range. Is that too much to hope for? Or, are we all hearing just what we want to hear and ignoring the facts?

[Zilch]

Does anyone think that today's AR-branded systems can equal the accuracy of the AR3a?

Easily. By any objective measure, vintage ARs are inaccurate, and it was no less intentional than the inaccuracy incorporated into West Coast designs such as JBL L100 at the time.

I hope the reviewers cite some examples of speakers on the market today that equal or surpass the AR3a in accuracy in that price range. Is that too much to hope for?

Nope, easy also; with averaged response from 50 Hz to 20 kHz, +/- 3 dB, today's desktop mini-systems will better them with respect to contemporary standards of accuracy. See Toole Fig. 2.5. "It is possible to be bad in many ways...."

[Shacky]

So a guy you don't know posts here, says he is from Stereophile magazine and gives you a phone number, asks to borrow a pair of AR3as in pristine conditon for some listening (not at your house of course) for an article, and you just jump up, run to the phone and tell him "take mine! take mine!" Sorry I didn't think of it first. That would be the last you ever saw of them. Even if he is telling the truth, what will you do if they are returned damaged? What if the tweeters are blown? Do you think they'd ever be the same again?

Once many years ago on another board, someone was lauding the praises of a CD duplicator which "enhanced" the sound of CDs by some magical unknown process. He had shills supporting him who worked up the rest of the contributors into a frenzy. When I suggested it might be a fraud because no technical claims were made for it, I was kicked off for a week. Evidently a lot of people bought this product based on that posting. Then one day about 6 months later, it came out that the guy who was selling this thing had them drop shipped to his house from the real manufacturer who made no special claims about them, put his own name on them, and charged double the price. Wow were they furious. An old saying has it that a fool and his money (and AR3as) are soon parted. So do you know the people you are lending them to or will you just lend them on good faith to anyone who says the right magic words like "I'm from Stereophile Magazine?" And people wonder how Bernie Madoff got away with it. There's one born every minute. Why not at least force them to agree to leave something of far greater financial value with you as collateral which they will agree to forfeit in exchange if your speakers are not returned in satisfactory condition? Let's if they are as trusting of you as you claim to be of them.

I will tell you that I did go and check the Stereophile editors list in their magazine to make sure Peter is the real thing. Somtimes a leap of faith is necessary and good. We'll see. I'm confident.

Jim

[soundminded]

Easily. By any objective measure, vintage ARs are inaccurate, and it was no less intentional than the inaccuracy incorporated into West Coast designs such as JBL L100 at the time.

How about the measure of live versus recorded? My how that inconvenient fact keeps coming back over and over again. If you could only make it go away Zilch, how much more convincing you might sound.

JBL L-100. Now there was one inaccurate speaker.

[Zilch]

How about the measure of live versus recorded? My how that inconvenient fact keeps coming back over and over again. If you could only make it go away Zilch, how much more convincing you might sound.

Subjective, contrived, and all but devoid of significance, not to mention long since discredited by science, the industry, and the marketplace, as well.

Last bastion of AR mythology, and totally irrelevant as to the matter of whether we actually like 'em or not.

Hopefully, Peter will provide something meritorious upon which you might hang your preference....

[soundminded]

Subjective, contrived, and all but devoid of significance, not to mention long since discredited by science, the industry, and the marketplace, as well.

Last bastion of AR mythology, and totally irrelevant as to the matter of whether we actually like 'em or not.

Hopefully, Peter will provide something meritorious upon which you might hang your preference....

"....totally irrelevant as to the matter of whether we actually like 'em or not."

That's what this industry has come down to for most people. That's why its dead. But it does hold out the promise of hope by allowing for an infinite number of new models that each and every one are an earthshattering breakthrough. Floyd Toole must be their god. He's shown the the way to salvation...financial salvation anyway.

BTW Jim, anyone could have looked up Peter Breuninger and said they were him. I'll send over someone in a truck to pick up the speakers in the morning if that's convenient. You'll know who he is by him telling you he's Peter B. himself.

[Shacky]

Hopefully, Peter will provide something meritorious upon which you might hang your preference....

That would be very nice indeed.

[genek]

It is dead, or at least dying, for a good reason. The average customer no longer needs speakers that simulate a live, acoustic-instrument concert.

It's probably doubtful whether "the average customer" ever did need themwhen you consider how long most symphony orchestras and ballet and opera companies have been dependent on philanthropic contributions for their survival.

[zcon67]

\

Here is an interesting thing about speakers that I read about in the Boston Audio Society magazine "Speaker" long ago. It relates to situations where one can upgrade on the cheap. Two knowledgeable BAS club members (I believe it was Mark Davis and Jim Brinton) were experimenting with trying to see if EQ could make a pair of AR-7s sound the same as a pair of AR-LST models (taking into account the latter's better bass performance, of course). They EQd and EQd and never could get the two system pairs to sound the same, even though the equalized power-response outputs were pretty similar and the spectral balances were the same. They sounded the same, but not the same in some important ways. The sense of spaciousness was different. Then, they brought in a second pair of AR-7s and hooked up all four, splaying each pair outward at angles similar to that of the outer LST panels. Then they EQd again and, zounds, the combos sounded almost the same in just about every way. Four properly arranged AR-7s could just about match two considerably more expensive LST systems.

Howard Ferstler

Hi Howard,

Wondered if your remember the configuration of the DBL 7"s?

Thanks, PeteZ

[Guest bocoogto]

In the late '70's, early 80's, I had my speakers set up as follows. Two AR3's, two AR3a's, two AR2a's. The four AR3's were driven with McIntosh MC60's. The AR2a's were driven by two mono-bridged Dynaco Stereo 70's. The speakers were stacked on AR stands horizontally. The bottom AR3's were oriented with tweeter/midrange toward the inside. The AR3a's were stacked with the tweeter/midrange toward the outside, as were the AR2a's on top of the stack. The speaker stacks were located about 1 foot away from a long wall and spaced about 8 feet apart.

The low end was fantastic. Power level was literally enough to rattle windows. It's the only AR setup I've ever heard that gave one the sense that any volume level was possible. And, as most of you know, when these old AR's were driven by decent amps, they just begged for more volume. Listening fatigue was non-existent. Whether listening to Telarc's 1812 Overature or Pink Floyd's The Wall, people that heard system were kind of stunned at the sound quality.

To elablorate on Howard's posting, the sound stage was very realistic. I believe the experiment he mentioned with AR7's vs. LST's would have yielded similar results.

You may be wondering why I ever dismantled this system. Both my sons were teenagers and would routinely turn the system on and listen to one 45 rpm record and turn the system off. I was kept pretty busy just replacing tubes in the power amps and midrange speakers in the AR3 and AR3a's. When the power switch in my PAS3 Dynaco preamp failed, I considered using a separate power switch for the power amps--as I should have done originally, but instead decided to make the change to Hafler amps and less speakers.

[Shacky]

Dropped my 3a's off with Peter this afternoon. Peter is a gentleman and has a beautiful home filled with wonderful audio gear. He even leant me a nice little tube integrated to audtion while he and JA go over the 3a's.

Peter has an obvious love of vintage gear from his personal experience. I'm looking forward to picking them up and taking a closer look at some of the eye candy I saw today. Unfortunately I had to run for work.

I'm looking forward to the experience. And am very glad Peter came to this respected site for help with obtaining some decent 3a's.

Will be a real hoot to see them in a future Stereophile article!

[zcon67]

In the late '70's, early 80's, I had my speakers set up as follows. Two AR3's, two AR3a's, two AR2a's. The four AR3's were driven with McIntosh MC60's. The AR2a's were driven by two mono-bridged Dynaco Stereo 70's. The speakers were stacked on AR stands horizontally. The bottom AR3's were oriented with tweeter/midrange toward the inside. The AR3a's were stacked with the tweeter/midrange toward the outside, as were the AR2a's on top of the stack. The speaker stacks were located about 1 foot away from a long wall and spaced about 8 feet apart.

Had to be a great setup and am glad to hear someone had done this. I was just trying to save some space and started stacking speakers so I could A/B. 5's on the bottom woofers down on stools, 5's horzontal woofers out, and 3's horizontal woofers out. It is a completely random configuration that sounded quite impressive to me. As you said, effortless and no fatigue. I was wondering if there was a better way to do this without restacking these 25 times as I am not into physical pain.

Thanks for your input, I'll try them like you had them and thanks Howard for clarifying the angle setup. I'll try that too.

PeteZ

[Peter Breuninger]

Dropped my 3a's off with Peter this afternoon. Peter is a gentleman and has a beautiful home filled with wonderful audio gear. He even leant me a nice little tube integrated to audtion while he and JA go over the 3a's.

Peter has an obvious love of vintage gear from his personal experience. I'm looking forward to picking them up and taking a closer look at some of the eye candy I saw today. Unfortunately I had to run for work.

I'm looking forward to the experience. And am very glad Peter came to this respected site for help with obtaining some decent 3a's.

Will be a real hoot to see them in a future Stereophile article!

Jim, Thanks for the kind words.

I am now satisfied with the participants in the project. The other pair was rough compared to Jims.

Speaking of which, Jim is a true gentleman and a good man. I lent him the Eico HF-81 from the Stereophile review so he can hear the magic of 6bq5's.

Jim- BTW, that "little" integrated will run circles around many other amplifiers.

Thanks everyone for all the posts!

Sincerely,

Peter Breuninger

[Guest Chuck]

All,

Deciding how to approach a vintage speaker review is clearly not as well defined as reviewing a modern component. For example, there has been discussion on “imaging” – owners of these vintage components didn’t necessarily listen that way in the 60’s and 70’s, did they? Typically, I think they positioned them to fit the décor of a room, and “played the music” - sometimes people even sat to the right of the right speaker! I doubt the focus of such a review would be “how well or poorly they image”. Also “In the context of their time of manufacture” can very well mean imaging was not a major issue with 3a owners, right? A vintage review like this could (potentially) be positive AND not obsess over imaging.

And restoration is definitely a can of worms of its own. I would vote that what we'd want is a set that performs and sound as “original” as possible, rather than “as good as someone make them sound” – those are 2 quite different objectives. Deteriorated tweeter specifications would be a concern, whereas using original, up-to-spec capacitors would not necessarily be of concern, even thought better ones are now made. If you don’t review “original”, then whose speaker is getting reviewed?

It will be a great discussion piece!

[Guest bocoogto]

I subscribed to Stereophile last month for two reasons. First, because of this thread stating they may test a pair of AR3a's. Second, the price for a year was extremely reasonable. The first two issues have arrived, and reminded me why I discontinued this magazine many years ago.

The most blatant reminder was in the issue that arrived yesterday. On the front cover is a CD player that sells for $24,000. That's right, the price of a new small car today. Of subsribers to Stereophile, I would guess that less than a dozen readers will seriously consider buying this CD player. Besides, of Stereophile's readers, those with that much disposable cash will spend it on vinyl equipment, anyhow. The magazine doesn't like anything digital---an ariticle about HDMI being invented by the devil kind of sums up the overall picture.

Bottom line is that unless a component AND interconnecting cables cost many thousands of dollars, it's not worth considering. If someone built a loudspeaker that outperformed anything now available at any cost and they cost $599 a pair, Stereophile would declare it a piece of crap!!

Hence, I fully expect the Stereophile AR3a test to declare the AR3a a piece of crap!! Never mind the fact that any speaker system available today for less than $1,000 a pair can't hold a candle to the AR3a.

Sorry for the rant, but that's how I see it.

[Zilch]

Hence, I fully expect the Stereophile AR3a test to declare the AR3a a piece of crap!! Never mind the fact that any speaker system available today for less than $1,000 a pair can't hold a candle to the AR3a.

Considering their curbside acquisition cost, that's quite a bargain indeed!

[soundminded]

I subscribed to Stereophile last month for two reasons. First, because of this thread stating they may test a pair of AR3a's. Second, the price for a year was extremely reasonable. The first two issues have arrived, and reminded me why I discontinued this magazine many years ago.

The most blatant reminder was in the issue that arrived yesterday. On the front cover is a CD player that sells for $24,000. That's right, the price of a new small car today. Of subsribers to Stereophile, I would guess that less than a dozen readers will seriously consider buying this CD player. Besides, of Stereophile's readers, those with that much disposable cash will spend it on vinyl equipment, anyhow. The magazine doesn't like anything digital---an ariticle about HDMI being invented by the devil kind of sums up the overall picture.

Bottom line is that unless a component AND interconnecting cables cost many thousands of dollars, it's not worth considering. If someone built a loudspeaker that outperformed anything now available at any cost and they cost $599 a pair, Stereophile would declare it a piece of crap!!

Hence, I fully expect the Stereophile AR3a test to declare the AR3a a piece of crap!! Never mind the fact that any speaker system available today for less than $1,000 a pair can't hold a candle to the AR3a.

Sorry for the rant, but that's how I see it.

"Hence, I fully expect the Stereophile AR3a test to declare the AR3a a piece of crap!!"

I think that will be the bottom line but I expect that conclusion will be expressed far more subtly than that. Even they don't hold their readership in such low regard that they'd expect they wouldn't see right through such a blatant nonsense statement. Then again, most of their readers have probably never even heard of AR3a let alone heard a pair.

You can tell John Atkinson what you think of his him and his publication directly on Audio Asylum's web site on the page called "critic's corner." I became bored with that site years ago.

The irony of high end audio equipment is that much of it is technically badly flawed. In experimenting with CD players about 2 years ago, I found that Toshiba DVD models using the 192 khz 24 bit audio chip was subjectively indistinguishable on every duplicate factory made cd I tried it with, with a JVC 1 bit 8x oversampling unit 431 I'd bought about 16 years earlier. Even the fixed output level of the JVC unit was identical to the Toshiba unit. I've got about 6 units with this chip in it ranging from $29 each to $78 for a 5 disc carousel model, to $138 for a cd recorder/vcr. The JVC unit was $200 new. It was easy to sync them using cue review on the JVC unit. I've concluded that both Toshiba and JVC units perform flawlessly every time. It's not that the $24,000 unit is not worth the extra money for being not much better but that to the degree that it is different from those units, it is flawed and inferior. No matter whether you prefer its sound or not to these other units, as a mechanism for converting an electrical signal optically stored back into an electrical signal, the expensive unit either performs its function the same or it does not perform its function as well, no ifs, ands or buts. It cannot perform it better. The only proof to the contrary would be to have access to the ultimate analog source signal, analyze the changes to the waveforms of each, and if the expensive unit was found to differ less from the original than the Toshiba units, that the differences were audible on AB double blind tests.

BTW, you will probably be able to read the review for free on Stereophile's web site. I looked at a few copies of Stereophile magazine around 1982 and concluded it was of no interest to me. I did not think it's reports were objective or useful in any way. I've never subscribed to it although I used to subscribe to all three popular hobbyist magazines, High Fidelity, Stereo Review, and Audio.

[Shacky]

I picked up my speakers from Peter this week and sadly dropped off his Eico HF-81. That is one sweet integrated. While not suited to the AR's, it was magical with my Dynaco A25's. I was enjoying this combo so much that I was afraid I may not like the AR 3a's as much when I returned them to my listening space. Already posted elsewhere that I was immediately reminded why they are my favorites. It was no contest. Hands down I prefer the AR 3a with my Sansui 9090DB even over that sweet Eico/Dynaco setup.

John Atkinson has stated his dislike of AR 3a's in the past. I saw something in the older list of top 100 audio gear. AR 3a is toward the bottom of that list. That article starts at the bottom of list so the AR comment is at beginning of the article. This is available on the online site.

I think we should applaud Peter for going the extra distance to make sure a good working pair of AR 3a's were used in his process. I did not press Peter for how the AR's will fair in the article. I will respect what he says as his listening reflections and not any overarching Stereophile agenda. I think a quick look at Peter's previous articles on vintage gear (like above mentioned Eico and Bozaks) will document Peter's great love of vintage gear. He has 2 pair each of Bozak Grand Concerts and Symphonies.

I received a note from one of the participants in Peter's AR3a, Dynaco A25, and I can't remember the 3rd listening session. He was also obviously a lover of vintage.

So the venerable AR 3a may or may not fair well in this process. I will thank Peter for the experience. He is a gentleman and truly loves music. Glad he is a contributor to this industry and hobbie.

[Pete B]

I have an unused HT preamp I picked up on a whim but also never got around to using, got any suggestions for a 5-channel power amp with at least 150-200 WPC? Might as well take the plunge into gear that will give me the option of surround sound in case soundminded ever lines up a licensee.

I meant to comment about your question here. First do you really want to have 3 ch at over 150W just

there in case you want to try 5.1 HT?

How about this, I often disagree with JC but he does design a nice amp I must say:

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=PAC5250

Or this for 2ch:

http://www.audioadvisor.com/prodinfo.asp?number=PAC2250

Or one of these used:

http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/100parasound/

I think the Parasounds give you more for your money at this price point:

http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/7500.html

2 now, 3 more later? http://www.outlawaudio.com/products/2200.html

Pete B.

[genek]

I meant to comment about your question here. First do you really want to have 3 ch at over 150W just

there in case you want to try 5.1 HT?

As it turned out, I ended up getting the 5-channel Sherwood Newcastle power amp that matched the preamp, and after hearing the TV sound through this combo and my 2ax's the wife decied we should install the extra channels. The final setup is a pair of 3a's in front, the old faithful 2ax's bringing up the rear, and the center channel a 1ms with 3/8" of fiberglass pipe wrap over the tweeter to bring its highs in line with the classic boxes.

[Pete B]

As it turned out, I ended up getting the 5-channel Sherwood Newcastle power amp that matched the preamp, and after hearing the TV sound through this combo and my 2ax's the wife decied we should install the extra channels. The final setup is a pair of 3a's in front, the old faithful 2ax's bringing up the rear, and the center channel a 1ms with 3/8" of fiberglass pipe wrap over the tweeter to bring its highs in line with the classic boxes.

I see, how do you like it?

Do you switch to 2ch mode for music listening?