EV vs. HK Design Philosophy

[charger3834]

I think you are on the money here. I'm 25 as well.

[charger3834]

"It's a toss up between the older AR-3a and the AR-LST as to which one I like better right now."

Bill,

Can you really hear the difference between your early 3a's with cloth surrounds and your newer 3a's with foam surrounds, or do you just like them better from a collector's standpoint ?

[Guest]

Actually, both. I do like them better from a collector's standpoint in that they truly represent the original early AR Inc. and to me it seems like the older style cloth surround woofers have a more prominent deep "sub" bass response that the newer foam surround woofers do not have. Though I've heard times when the cloth surround woofer AR-3a's tended to have a heavy upper mid bass resonance that made them sound kinda' thick. The newer woofers to me seem to have a higher resonance peak higher up in the bass than the older woofers do. They both sound good nevertheless to me and I treasure both models of AR-3a. However I am afraid to push the older cloth surround woofers too loud because they might get stressed and damaged more easily than the newer woofers. I don't blast these speakers (like a young teenager would you know, I play them at moderate listening levels, nothing to rock the house down).

The AR-3a tweeter controls need to be turned up to maximum to get the best accuracy and pleasing souncd out of them. The midrange levels are set somewhere in the middle near or slightly above the white dot on the level controls.

Yes, I like the older original cloth surround woofered AR-3a's better from a historical and a collectors point of view. But then, that's just me. :-)

[charger3834]

From a collectors standpoint I agree with you. From a historical perspective, I like my 1965 AR-2ax's better than my 1972 AR-2ax's. However, the newer design is a little better. I will push the newer version a little harder. I actually have 2 sets of post 1970 2ax's. I also have 1969 AR-4x's. Aside from those, the only other models I have ever played with were AR-3a's (old woofer) and AR-6's.

[Guest]

My very first pair of speakers that I bought for myself at age of 13 was AR-4x's. I remember reading all the Hi-fi mags reports of the time (Stereo Review, High Fidelity, Audio) and Consumers Reports and chose it based on their recommendations. And at 13, I was expecting more of course and was not satisfied with (what I thought at that age and time) the muted sound and lack of deep bass. What did I know at age 13! heh, heh, I sold them to a musician friend (back in the early 1970's) but recently in the late 1990's bought several pairs of them back from ebay and restored them. They sound wonderful for the little boxes that they are! Of course as with other AR speakers, they changed the crossover networks around a few times, since I have different crossovers in different but all original AR-4x's. I don't remember exactly which crossover design I liked better since this was a few years ago and the AR-4x's are buried under lots of other speakers right now. The tweeters are extremely fragile though and cannot take much abuse or they will blow! In my teenage years I burned out so many AR-4x tweeters I lost count! And AR Inc. always fixed them free with free shipping too, albeit with second hand refurb drivers. Cool warantee policy.

Anyhow, today I am alot smarter (I think! :-)) and I know not to abuse the speakers like I did as a teenager looking for the "Siss Boom Bbang!" loud in your face, in the room, sound. I'm alot more

settled down and educated now at age 48.

These days I might add I always play my music without tone control equalization. That is with the amp or preamp flat or tone controls bypassed when I evaluate speakers or program material. BTW, All of my comments about the accurate sound of the AR-3a and older AR Inc. speakers in general are listening to them with tone controls set flat or off. No treble or bass or midrange boost equalization used what so ever. A habit, left over from my High End "purist" pursuits of about 10 to 12 years ago.

Anyhow without writing a book, all I wanted to say was I listen to all my music with amplifier tone controls set "flat" just as a reference to my comments about comparing speaker sounds.

Also I want to mention that I have a pair of AR-11's which I modified to make it sound like an AR-3a. It kicks butt this way IMHO! and driven with a lowly Sony mid-fi (not ES) surround sound receiver! BTW, I don't work for Sony, it's just that I am amazed that they power the AR-3a's so well and accurately (not blasting loud where the amp is clipping, just casusal to moderately loud).

Another thing that alot of listeners should learn to recognize is to hear when the amplifiers they are using are at the point of clipping. This I know, is not easy for everyone to understand or recognize, but I just would like to introduce it here FWIW. Some folks (alot really!) don't even know what the onset of amp clipping sounds like let alone hard clipping! They will just blast away and it sounds so terrible! awww nuff' said here on that.

[charger3834]

I got my 4x's when I was 15, that was 10 years ago. I didn't have any failures because I was smart enough to respect their age. They are a mint set, bone stock.

All AR speakers play well at fairly high volumes. The 4x does seem to be a bit more delicate than some of the other models.

I believe that Roy Allison designed the 4,4x and 4xa himself.

I bypass the tone controls on my amp too. However, I will use some loudness compensation.

I personally believe that ARs are very attractive speakers that blend in well to a classy living room.

[Steve F]

Mark, Brad—

I’m glad the two of you have such a passion for these classic speakers at your age! It really means that the interest will be passed down and continue into the future.

However, your committed interest to this subject doesn’t alter the assessment that general, broad-based interest in component hi-fi is diminishing. Remember what I said:

"Although there will always be a certain group of customers that appreciates fine sound, quality performance, and beautiful aesthetics, for the majority of people, audio/video electronics have become a results-oriented purchase instead of a process-oriented purchase… (although) there will probably always be a few models in the line that appeal to "traditionalists" like us."

That is just a natural evolution of changing technology and a changing marketplace. Things change over time. It happens. Shortwave radio is not the enthusiast-based hobby that it was a generation ago, because these days, you can listen to virtually any radio program you want from anywhere in the world, via the internet. That’s not a bad thing per se, it just means that the old hobby is not as relevant as it once was. But it’s still perfectly ok to like it.

A very good friend of mine is a professional photographer. He has been in the profession for about 25-30 years. Two years ago, he went all digital. No more film, no more processing, nothing. Everything he does now is on the computer, with PhotoShop. These days when he shoots a wedding, instead of 10 rolls of 36 exposures, he routinely shoots 800-1000 pictures per event. He can re-touch flash glare off eyeglasses. He can remove stray strands of hair drooping down on someone’s forehead. He can eliminate a floorstanding plant in the background that looks like it’s growing out of someone’s head. Five or 10 years from now, digital photography will be the norm for even the most casual amateur. Kids won’t even know about "film" cameras, just like your kids will never know about LPs and replacement styli.

That’s ok—it’s just the natural progression of things. I’m glad we have this wonderful site to exchange ideas, share experiences, and pass along knowledge to each other. I love the hobby of 1950’s-1970’s or ‘80’s hi-fi, but I don’t feel "bad" about it not being as mainstream as it once was. Maybe it’s the marketing person in me: I see how markets develop, change, and evolve, and I understand how and why companies need to adapt to those changes in a timely fashion. That’s a completely different thought than what interests me as a hobby.

PS- Brad: Roy Allison didn’t do the AR-4xa. That speaker (with the 1 1/4" cone tweeter from the AR-6) was introduced in 1974, and Roy had already left AR in late 1972 to complete the independent research that led to his founding of Allison Acoustics.

Steve F.

[charger3834]

>>

>PS- Brad: Roy Allison didn’t do the AR-4xa. That speaker

>(with the 1 1/4" cone tweeter from the AR-6) was introduced

>in 1974, and Roy had already left AR in late 1972 to

>complete the independent research that led to his founding

>of Allison Acoustics.

>

>Steve F.

I would have thought that, but the Allison brochure on this site said that Roy designed the AR-4 and " all of it's successor models."

[Steve F]

I would have thought that, but the Allison brochure on this site said that Roy designed the AR-4 and " all of it's successor models."

Brad Evans

Brad,

What the Allison brochure meant was that Roy did the AR-4 (the first 'small' AR, with an 8" woofer), and "then all of its successor models"--meaning all the successor 8" compact speakers: the 4x, the 6, and then the 7.

Steve F.

[charger3834]

Steve,

Thanks for the clarification.

[Guest bluetomgold]

Fantastic thread.

I've been messing about with some speaker (and turntable) designs based on AR philosophies, and been thinking about the possibility of doing it as a business.

I work in retail and depressingly the comments regarding proper audio vs. Bose are true. However, while the market for real Hi-Fi is shrinking, the number of companies making decent products at an affordable price is shrinking at an even greater rate.

I use a pair of restored AR-4x's, which give an unfatiguing, but extremely involving, musical listening experience in my small living room. I've tried 'better' speakers, but as my girlfriend says, they may sound "more like Hi-Fi", but they sound less like music. The AR's are also one of the nicest pieces of furniture I own - with their oiled walnut finish and linen grill cloth they look and feel fantastic.

While the AR-4x has its faults - it was a 'budget' speaker in the late 60s after all - I can't find a new speaker which I could live with for sensible money. There IS still a niche market for quality equipment, and using 'old-fashioned' principles could make products stand out in a market full of bogus technological advances. I think the answer is to focus on products like the AR18 and AR-4x rather than the AR-3a or AR9 - there's no point in trying to redefine the state of the art, but it would be great to spread the joy of 'proper' music reproduction at an affordable price point.

I'm 28 and live in the UK. My experience is that much of 'My Generation' wants to own a decent Hi-Fi, but believes too much marketing, advertising, and PR-driven press. There's an expectation that £300 will buy you a quality separates system. Nobody mentions build quality, reliability, or the idea that investing a little bit more could buy you something engineered to produce music (rather than impress), and last a lifetime. In my experience it's more the 35-50 age group that wants "lifestyle" (i.e. compact size, modern styling, status and convenience) over music.

My neighbour saw me lugging a huge pair of old speakers into my flat. He told me he had a Bose system - expecting me to be impressed. I tried to be (he's a nice guy), but I just wasn't. He claims to be a music fan but I never hear his stereo (he often hears mine). I can't help but wonder whether he'd listen more if he had a pair of AR-4a's too.

Sometimes I get the feeling that these days people are being sold short in terms of audio - and that their expectations in terms of music are suffering as a consequence. It would be great to see some new products rekindle the fire that was lit in the 60s and 70s, and see a few more people staying up late to LISTEN to just one more LP.

On that note, I'm off to roll up a herbal cigarette and put The Royal Scam on my AR-XA. Hope the bloke upstairs doesn't wake up.