crunkarelli Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I'm looking at a pair of AR-48s for sale vs. a pair of AR-2AXs. Which are better sounding? The 48s are considerably less money that the 2ax so I'm afraid I'd be paying more money for less sound quality just because the 2AX is a "classic" AR.Are the AR-5s or AR-12s better than both? If so, in what ways? Thanks for any guidance you can provide! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 I'm looking at a pair of AR-48s for sale vs. a pair of AR-2AXs. Which are better sounding? The 48s are considerably less money that the 2ax so I'm afraid I'd be paying more money for less sound quality just because the 2AX is a "classic" AR.Are the AR-5s or AR-12s better than both? If so, in what ways? Thanks for any guidance you can provide!The 48 was a respectable speaker, but it has none of the cache of the 2ax or 5. It's a competent sound-delivery appliance, not a collectible audio gem. The degree to which any of that matters to you is for you to decide.The 5 was thought by many to have had the most satisfying spectral balance of any of the original AR's. While the 5 didn't have the 3a's authoritative reach into the bottom end, neither did it have the heaviness for which the 3a was often criticized. t was a fine loudspeaker, and within its frequency range (mid-forties Hz on up), it was as good as AR could build at that time.The 2ax--compared to the 5--didn't offer quite the same degree of clarity or dispersion through the midrange, and in a direct A-B comparison would sound just a bit "boxier" than the 5. Later 2ax's had the same woofer and same tweeter as the 5, so it would be its equal in those areas.The 12 was an updated combination of the 2ax and the 5. (There was no 10" version of the 11 as the 5 was to the 3a.). The 12 had a 2 1/4" cone midrange with the industry's first use of ferro-fluid cooling, and it used a later 3/4" tweeter than the 5/2ax, also FF-cooled. The increased power-handling afforded by the ferro-fluid mid and hi-range drivers allowed AR to drive those units harder through the crossover, resulting in a markedly 'brighter' overall sound than the 3a-5-2ax series of speakers. IMO, the 12 has a little bit of worth as a collectible, more than the 48, less than the 5/2ax.Do you like that brighter sound? Again, it's for you to decide.Steve F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunkarelli Posted May 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 Great reply. Thanks.I understand the collectible value of the original series, however if you were to put a blindfold on and listen to the 2ax vs the 48s, which would have a more appealing sound?The original series is sometimes faulted for being a bit reticent (veiled? mellow?). It sounds like the 12s and 48s may overcome that issue by being "brigher", but overall does that mean better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.