Recent AR4x prices!

[mrbruce4]

I'm sure some have noticed the recent ebay prices for the 4x. Does anyone have an explanation for why the prices have gone so high? An average of $200 to nearly $300! I have had a set for a couple of years and they admittedly sound good - but $300, with shipping, seems crazy high for less than mint condition sets. Even if they were mint, with new caps, that seems like a lot in a slow economy.

Also realize that "it's whatever the market will bear", but I don't sense that other vintage equipment prices have shot up like this.

[ar_pro]

For the music lover in search of a reliable, full-range loudspeaker, the AR-4x is a bargain at $300.

The speaker benefits from very long-lived drivers - with its simple paper tweeter and cloth-surround woofer, it's more robust than any other AR system from that era.

The single level control is easy to deal with, as is the crossover...the cabinet is a beauty, and can be refinished to look like new.

And the AR-4x is not fussy about its amplifier, either - you can get GREAT results from vintage tubes, or modern solid-state.

$300? People can spend that much on their cable bill.

[Rich W]

Back in April, a pair of AR-7's went for $227 plus $47 shipping. Although that sounds pretty steep, where can you find something comparable in today's market without going "high-end"?

Rich W

[Zilch]

Backlash:

http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=AR4x.html

[tysontom]

Backlash:

http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=AR4x.html

Zilch,

Perhaps you put stock in "Murphyblaster;" he's no loudspeaker engineer but trained in an entirely different field, I believe. He has a crossover design and some related stuff and he measures loudspeakers for a hobby. So here we are again, another "expert" sprouting up in the weeds. He has the AR-4x wrong: it never used oil-filled capacitors; it did not have a 2-inch tweeter which, incidentally, was considered to have relatively wide dispersion for a low-cost loudspeaker design. The KLH Six is much brighter, which he seems to prefer, and considered less accurate in the upper-frequency range by most knowledgable audiophiles. He also measured the AR-3a which showed a similar lack of knowledge of what he was measuring. Like so many others, he jumped on the bandwagon to try to "dump" on the old AR-3a. I've listened to one of his 2-way speaker designs awhile back, and the sound grated on my nerves. So in my view, any "backlash" about the AR-4x is probably a "good" thing from what I can see.

[Carlspeak]

Backlash:

http://murphyblaster.com/content.php?f=AR4x.html

Poor choice of words. You forgot to include a link to my recent CSP post on the 4X. Here it is for another perspective:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...?showtopic=5360

My tests show a different response which proves to me that not all speakers are created equal nor measure equal with different equipment under different conditions. One test on a vintage speaker here and there doesn't mean much - including my own tests. I include my tests now and then here for folks to view and draw their own conclusions. Yes, tests on vintage speakers will show their faults relative to those of modern speakers, but never-the-less, their sound somehow draws the listeners in.

Visitors to the MurphyBlaster site should also open his 3a test file. He doesn't write as much about his 3a results as the 4x but his last sentence should be a bit hartening to devout 3a fans.

[Zilch]

I'll bet the power response is decent, though.

Tell the forum how AR4x exploits "max dispersion" just like your Allisons, Howard; they didn't even make flat in AR's "special" highly reverberant chamber.

AR4x power response was measured in both of AR's listening rooms, and the results are shown in Allison and Berkovitz Figs. 31-33.

I'll not characterize their findings lest this thread lateral arabesque to The Kitchen....

So here we are again, another "expert" sprouting up in the weeds.

Which is why we trust the measurements and not opinions, of course.

it did not have a 2-inch tweeter which, incidentally, was considered to have relatively wide dispersion for a low-cost loudspeaker design.

... For the era, perhaps, but they are certainly "beamy" by contemporary standards. Allison characterized them as "relatively directional" ca. 1970, actually, op. cit..

My tests show a different response which proves to me that not all speakers are created equal nor measure equal with different equipment under different conditions. One test on a vintage speaker here and there doesn't mean much - including my own tests.

I'm seeing the same "issues" in your curves, as well. I never did the polars, apparently, but the rest of it is here:

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=123113

Next time I find a pair for $15, I'll measure the off-axis response before "recycling" them for 2000% profit on eBay.

Visitors to the MurphyBlaster site should also open his 3a test file. He doesn't write as much about his 3a results as the 4x but his last sentence should be a bit heartening to devout 3a fans.

Yeah, well, click his Minimus 7 analysis, and you'll find he said the same for them....

[genek]

My tests show a different response which proves to me that not all speakers are created equal nor measure equal with different equipment under different conditions. One test on a vintage speaker here and there doesn't mean much - including my own tests. I include my tests now and then here for folks to view and draw their own conclusions.

The only vintage speaker measurements that matter much to me are measurements comparing a speaker with working original parts to one with proposed replacement parts, both taken under identical conditions. Such measurements have at least a remote chance of enabling me to avoid wasting my money on a replacement part that has specs that are supposedly identical to the original but doesn't sound right.

From my reading here and on Audiokarma, Carl appears to be the only person in the vintage speaker world who is posting such measurements.

[Zilch]

Hello?

[genek]

Hello?

Ok, make that "measurements comparing an AR speaker with working original parts to one with proposed replacement parts, both taken under identical conditions."

[ar_pro]

In college, I must have know a dozen people who owned the AR-4x - many of them were female, and they loved those little speakers.

It was AR's best value, too - real bass extension, and a balanced presentation that never became fatiguing.

And being smaller, they are now easily incorporated into modern settings - they look just like the classic big AR systems, but at half-scale!

[Steve F]

I’ve told the story many times here on the Forum and long-time readers are no doubt tired of hearing it. But it’s a good backdrop to this topic. So here it is again:

When I was a teenager in the 60’s, my Dad—who was a real ‘hi-fi’ nut—was “asked” to get rid of his huge floorstanding Goodmans 15” 3-way speakers by my Mom. She had put up with them ruining the décor of our home for almost a decade and enough was enough, she said.

So my Dad took me to Lafayette Radio and we listened to speakers. It came down to three: some Warfdales (W-45’s? I forget.), the Dynaco A-25’s and the 4x’s. The Dyna’s and the AR’s were the finalists, but at $79.95 ea, the Dyna’s were just a little too pricey. The 4x’s were $57 ea, but the salesman gave my Dad the ‘unfinished’ price of $51 ea. Such a deal.

We brought them home, and my Mom of course, was thrilled with their size.

We fired them up, and my jaw dropped. The 4x’s had deeper, firmer bass—BY FAR—than the big Goodmans, and the AR’s sounded so much more natural in the higher ranges as well. The Goodmans, by comparison, had what I called a “raspy, tinny” quality to their sound.

“That’s “midrange coloration”, my Dad said. I was so impressed—he knew all those cool terms.

Anyway, that such a small speaker could just walk all over such a huge speaker and sound so much better, that’s what started my interest in hi-fi in general, and AR speakers in particular.

Dad loved those AR’s, and I know that it’s been impossible for me through the years to separate my liking of AR from the memories of sitting with my Dad for hours on end, listening to Dave Brubeck, Gerry Mulligan, Mahler, Mozart, and all kinds of good stuff. In one breath, we’d talk about the new 525 Hz (vs. 575 Hz) 3a woof-to-mid x-over spec, and in the next breath we’d talk about whether we liked Von Karajan’s or Ozawa’s Beethoven’s 7th better.

In high school, a good friend of mine bought Large Advents and he’d boast about how good they were, how good the bass was, etc. Then he’d come over to our house with his favorite albums and hear Dad’s 4x’s and say, “It’s not fair! It’s not fair that these little speakers—half the size and half the price of my Advents—can sound so good!”

That’s what Dad and I would call the 4’s from that point on—the “not fair” speakers.

Fun stuff. Great memories. Great little speakers.

Steve F.

[Zilch]

Ok, make that "measurements comparing an AR speaker with working original parts to one with proposed replacement parts, both taken under identical conditions."

Well, "Hello again," then. I've certainly posted more regarding AR pots and pot replacement schemes than anybody, and AR4x drivers and substitutions galore. There's data on AR1 and AR2, also.

I'm not saying what I've done is any big whoop, just pointing out that it is there, if one cares to look for it, and I'm certainly pleased to see Carl and others doing more of this than has ever appeared here before, recently....

[genek]

Well, "Hello again," then. I've certainly posted more regarding AR pots and pot replacement schemes than anybody, and AR4x drivers and substitutions galore. There's data on AR1 and AR2, also.

I'm not saying what I've done is any big whoop, just pointing out that it is there, if one cares to look for it, and I'm certainly pleased to see Carl and others doing more of this than has ever appeared here before, recently....

Sorry if I missed it. I guess it got drowned out by all the hostility that you seem to attract to yourself around here.

[Zilch]

Sorry if I missed it. I guess it got drowned out by all the hostility that you seem to attract to yourself around here.

OH? Who? Where?

If that's anyone's objective, they may as well give it up, as it's thus far rating "Score = Zero" with the intended recipient....

[tysontom]

Well, "Hello again," then. I've certainly posted more regarding AR pots and pot replacement schemes than anybody, and AR4x drivers and substitutions galore. There's data on AR1 and AR2, also.

I'm not saying what I've done is any big whoop, just pointing out that it is there, if one cares to look for it, and I'm certainly pleased to see Carl and others doing more of this than has ever appeared here before, recently....

Zilch, I think your problem is that you seem to measure right on top of a speaker, and your interpretation of those measurements is questionable. Your intentions are probably good; your credibility seems to be lacking. Your approach is caustic and confrontational, especially here. If there was validity in what you say, people on this forum would have reason to worry, but simply acquiring a system "frequency-response" measurement in your measurement venue only tells a small portion of what a speaker is doing -- or how it will sound in most places -- but I think you put full credance in running a few casual on- and off-axis response curves, and posting the results of you measurements on the forum with the attendant qualitative comments.

Carl is doing a good job with his measurements, and it appears that his measurements are more in line with what's really going on. A good example of that was how close his off-axis curves matched the anechoic curves.

--Tom Tyson

[Zilch]

Carl is doing a good job with his measurements, and it appears that his measurements are more in line with what's really going on. A good example of that was how close his off-axis curves matched the anechoic curves.

You're not going to answer the question, then?

The anechoic curves are the driver on a test baffle, not in the system, right?

NOBODY has yet posted on-axis AR4x measurements which match that curve.

In fact, my measurements and Murphy's are quite in agreement, and Carl's are not far off from these.

Regarding off-axis measurements, AR4x is asymmetric. It must be measured both inboard and outboard to characterize the behavior of the tweeter alone in situ as well as that of the woofer/tweeter in combination.

Carl's measurements indicate that the HF has tanked -7 dB by 7 kHz at 30°, and it's all down hill from there. That was not wide dispersion in 1970, nor is it today, using -6 dB, the industry standard criterion.

Zilch, I think your problem is that you seem to measure right on top of a speaker, and your interpretation of those measurements is questionable. Your intentions are probably good; your credibility seems to be lacking.

You're going nowhere attempting to characterize my work as that of an amateur hack; it's quasi-anechoic using CLIO, the accepted industry standard, virtually a slam-dunk for HF above 1 kHz, and all of the parameters for each measurement are shown in the respective legends. Except for nearfield bass measurements, they are all taken at 1m or greater distance, which may be easily calculated from the window width posted with each one.

D'Appolito's Measuring Loudspeakers describes how this is done, what it means, and how to interpret the curves.

Your approach is caustic and confrontational, especially here.

No matter what I post or where, whether it's regarding L100, Altec Valencia, VOTT, AR, Advent, whatever, if it's inconsistent with anyone's beliefs, and they feel strongly about them, they're always ready to step forward and tell the readership that Zilch is full of crap and recite the subjectivist mantra, rather than endeavor to rationally reconcile their opinion with the facts. I don't know how many times I have to repeat it, but no one's enjoyment of what they like should be in any way diminished by knowledge and understanding of just what it is they like....

[ar_pro]

You're right, Steve - the AR-4x is downright startling, for its size - what a fine little speaker!

[genek]

No matter what I post or where, whether it's regarding L100, Altec Valencia, VOTT, AR, Advent, whatever, if it's inconsistent with anyone's beliefs, and they feel strongly about them, they're always ready to step forward and tell the readership that Zilch is full of crap and recite the subjectivist mantra, rather than endeavor to rationally reconcile their opinion with the facts.

I can't tell whether what you're posting is "full of crap" or the second coming of Dantzig's proofs, I'm not remotely qualified. I can tell from your posts that you seem incapable of disagreeing with anyone's opinion without insulting them personally. And whether anyone's reaction to you affects you or not, they affect this forum. Every time I log on and see that the most recent post in any thread is by you, my first thought is that there's going to be another flame war and the thread is doomed to end up in the kitchen. Perhaps it's not what you're saying about anyone's favorite speaker that makes so many people dislike you.

[johnieo]

mrbruce4 asked a reasonable question that generated two focused replies.

The thread was then co-opted by an alluvial and unrelated comment. We are hearing reverberations from The Kitchen. Who left its door open?

Cheers,

John

[Zilch]

I can tell from your posts that you seem incapable of disagreeing with anyone's opinion without insulting them personally.

By quick review, I count four gratuitous insults lobbed in my direction thus far in this thread, when the worst I have suggested is that I have never paid more than $15 a pair to acquire AR4x's....

mrbruce4 asked a reasonable question that generated two focused replies.

The thread was then co-opted by an alluvial and unrelated comment. We are hearing reverberations from The Kitchen. Who left its door open?

My "alluvial and unrelated comment" was decidedly on topic in the context of the first two replies. Consider it "counterpoint" to those opinions, if you like, it elicited worthwhile discussion of the nature of the subject AR4x, and methodology employed to measure them, with corollary links for those who might desire to pursue these matters in more detail.

Despite its location at the bottom of the pile, The Kitchen has accrued views at the rate of 450 per day for the last week, 20,719 total to date, and if it continues to grow at its present rate, it will be the second largest forum on the site by this time next month. We are not in detention over there....

[genek]

We are not in detention over there....

Yes, we are.

[Zilch]

Yes, we are.

Fine, I can answer this question, then:

Back in April, a pair of AR-7's went for $227 plus $47 shipping. Although that sounds pretty steep, where can you find something comparable in today's market without going "high-end"?

http://www.audiokarma.org/forums/showthread.php?t=221076

Anyone can upgrade $15 yard sale/thrift store AR4x's for $100 in their "vintage" cabinets, or in PE's snazziest curved modern ones for $250 or less.

The question was rhetorical, but really, the true merits of East Coast loudspeakers deserve more and better attention than the pervasive make-believe here, and it doesn't take a whole lot of effort to discover precisely what those are, and, potentially, how to make them better.

Member Frankmarsi links us to a four-year-old thread at Audio Asylum as evidence that "Other sites love AR's too," but though I did not keep score while reading, contrary opinion was also well represented there; it'd be good to get closer to the truth, which lies in the realm of fact, not opinion:

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Boar...?showtopic=5464

If all we have is Murphy saying, "They aren't that terrible," it is faint praise, indeed, and surely, there is more of substance to know if only we cranked up the signal....

[mrbruce4]

Johnieo - Thanks for trying to bring discussion back to my question. I wondered where the thread went and am now familiar with the "kitchen".

To expand a little on my original question and comment - I am routinely listening to KLH 17 and KLH 5 sets as well as the AR4X. All have been recapped, by me, as a result of different forum members encouragement. As expected, each has something of a different characteristic sound, which is also affected by use of different vintage receivers. The 17s and the 4Xs are both driven right now by a Marantz 25. Switching between them lets the differences show through, but both are pleasant.

My original comment was a result of my surprise that the 4X are routinely selling for what seems like 3 and 4 times what I (vaguely) recall they sold for a year ago. Admittedly, I don't watch all prices closely, but it hasn't seemed that KLH, to name one only as an example, are routinely selling for multiples of prices from a year ago.

I think all of these speakers, as well as other brands on CSP, are good values compared to many of the new speakers. (I have stacked Advents that I like as well.) Probably all of them can be made better through mods. What I was looking for was any insight into why, or even whether, the AR4X seems to have spiked in value.

Bruce

[Zilch]

It's weird, and somehow linked to the economic conditions. Select JBLs are spiking, too; there's still deep pockets out there.

My point is that it just doesn't make a lot of sense when AR4x's and most of the others mentioned can routinely be acquired for chump change, and substantially better speakers for less than the resale value of those.....