Is the 9 is the 'best' AR?

[Steve F]

I’m about to take a position that may stir up a little controversy, but I think we can handle it. This is the Forum, after all, and we can successfully tackle tough issues.

I have come to the conclusion that, all things considered, the AR Vertical Series (9, 90, 91, 92) from the 1978-1981 time frame was about the ‘best’ overall family of AR speakers.

Let me define what I mean by ‘best’ so the following comments and opinions can be put into their proper context.

Objective measured performance—

- The Verticals (well, the 9 and 90 anyway; I’m not sure the 91 and 92 were ever reviewed/measured by any of the ‘Big Three’ audio mags) had truly excellent on-axis FR, probably the best of any AR speaker.

- they had vertically-aligned drivers for interference-free response in the horizontal plane (arguably the more important direction for home listening, since seated ear height tends to vary only within about a 6-10” window, regardless of the person’s standing height, yet horizontal seating/listening positions can and do vary by the width of the room).

- their ‘acoustic blanket’ design made their near-field performance pretty diffraction- and interference-free, in stark contrast to the Classics’ edge molding diffraction issues and the ADD’s (10 Pi, 11, 12) interference problems caused by their side-by-side MR and T (when their cabs were vertical).

- The 1 ½” dome MR and ¾” dome T had excellent dispersion, for good far-field spatiality.

- The 4-way design with the 8” LMR took a lot of strain off the 12” woofer trying to ‘meet up’ with the dome MR.

- Excellent room integration with their side-mounted woofers compensating for the Allison Boundary Effect.

‘Subjective’ personality traits—

- The Verticals still carried enough of the previous AR performance traits (smoothness, lack of harsh artifacts, very low bass harmonic distortion, etc.) to be identifiable as ‘having the same DNA.’ No one would ever mistake a 9 for a JBL or an Infinity. The 9 still sounded like an AR—more HF perhaps, more forward than earlier AR’s, but still very much in the AR tradition. At least to my ears, anyway.

- They had an inviting, easy character, and listened ‘well’ for long periods of time. Maybe this is a repeat of the section above, but you get the idea.

- They were still ‘ungimicky’ speakers, with virtually no concession to meaningless fluff cosmetics, which unfortunately the later 9, 98 and 78 LS speakers fell prey to.

There is ‘something’ about my 9’s that is so completely satisfying, so totally ‘right’ that I can’t quite put my finger on. I have heard all manner of speakers, from 50-yr vintage to very modern, from bookshelf to floorstanding, from all kinds of manufacturers, using paper or poly or aluminum or titanium or silk or Kevlar, or woven carbon fiber, using all kinds of x-o components and all kinds of internal wiring and all kinds of cabinet materials and construction methods.

Many well-designed ‘modern’ high-end speakers from reputable manufacturers (many Snells, Thiels, Aerials, B&W’s, etc.) are truly excellent, with a transparency and detail that can only be described as striking. With the appropriate material, they can be very convincing indeed. I have heard these speakers at great length, in several venues, and have nothing but the very highest regard for their performance.

But the 9 has ‘something’—an organic, musical, less ‘sterile’ quality, I can’t really describe it (obviously!!)—that those others just don’t have.

I am not taking anything at all away from the 3, 3a, LST, 10 Pi or any other earlier AR speaker. They may well be peoples’ “favorites” and with all manner of good reasons. No argument from me, and no justification or defense is necessary.

But I do think the 9 and 90 (and by implication within their design/price limits/compromises, the 91/92) are probably the ‘best’ overall AR speakers, whether considered on a purely “objective” basis (smooth on-axis FR, lack of near-field ‘havoc,’ good room integration, wide far-field dispersion, low bass THD, etc.) or considered on a more subjective basis (musicality, listenability, the lack of the over-sharpness of a Thiel, however you choose to define that indefinable quality).

Remember, I’m not talking about our “favorite” AR speakers, which may be an entirely different consideration. Nor am I talking about ‘best in its day,’ or “best relative to the competition” or anything of that sort. Yes, the 3 was by far the ‘best in its day’ and probably had a wider margin of ascendancy over its then-competition than any AR speaker, before or since. But that’s not what I’m talking about here.

That’s my view. For the record, I’ve owned 2ax’s, 3a’s, 11’s, LST-2’s, 91’s, Connoisseur 50’s, and 9’s. I grew up with my Dad’s 4x’s. I am currently using the 9’s and 3a’s in different rooms in my house.

Steve F.

[dingus]

though i've never heard any of the following systems, i would think that the addition of a sub to the MGC-1, Classic 30 or Limited Model 3 may very well surpass the 9's. heck, on their own they might even give the 9's a run for their money, but the better low end of the 9 may be too much for them to overcome.

[Steve F]

though i've never heard any of the following systems, i would think that the addition of a sub to the MGC-1, Classic 30 or Limited Model 3 may very well surpass the 9's. heck, on their own they might even give the 9's a run for their money, but the better low end of the 9 may be too much for them to overcome.

I heard the Classic 30 and Limited 3 at the AR plant in Norwood MA in late '92, during a BAS tour. This was just months before they closed up shop and went to CA. Both were nice speakers, but I can't say I am really intimately acquainted with their sound. The L3 was an interesting speaker, and a perfect example of the lengths of marketing idiocy that can and sometimes does overcome good engineering.

John Buzzota (the AR engineer who was making the L3 presentation to the BAS) told us that the 3 used a very expensive 'brand-name' tweeter--I forget which one-- that actually performed WORSE than a less-expensive Vifa. But this particular individual at AR (whose name I won't reveal) insisted on using it anyway, feeling the so-called cachet of having that tweeter was worth it. They had to design a more complex, more expensive crossover because they used that tweeter, just to maintain the overall performance.

Adding a sub doesn't count--I'm talking about full-range, stand-alone AR speakers. Besides, I'll make the purely arbitrary ruling that all three speakers you mention are too rare when considered on a sales or market life basis to qualify for consideration.

Very creative thinking, however. Full credit to you.

Steve F.

[genek]

I've not had opportunities to hear very many of the vertical ARs. I heard 9's under conditions that were definitely not optimum (not enough power, too small listening space), and they so overpowered the room that the demo was useless. I never had a chance to hear any of the other speakers in the period you specified, and After that I didn't hear another big, vertical AR until the TSW910 and I didn't care much for that one at all. But I didn't like any of the TSWs I heard, so that probably has less to do with the 910's configuration than it does with the other changes that had been made to the AR "family sound" by then.

[ar_pro]

A well thought-out summation of the AR-9, Steve...nice work.

I've carefully listened to the AR-LST, and owned the AR-3, 3a, 11, 90, 91, and have restored several pairs of AR-9 systems, and feel that the 9 is a substantial improvement over any of the bookshelf systems.

I find it difficult to compare the LST and the 9, in that their design goals were disparate, resulting in two excellent high-end loudspeakers that present two fundamentally different listening experiences.

That said, the AR-9 has a certain top-to-bottom seamlessness and extension that are not present in the LST - factors that put it in the #1 position for me.

And while I believe the AR-91 to be the best of Acoustic Research's efforts at a 3-way system, the superior build quality of the early 3 and 3a boxes makes me wonder what the AR-91 would sound like with a better-braced enclosure.

[dingus]

....The L3 was an interesting speaker, and a perfect example of the lengths of marketing idiocy that can and sometimes does overcome good engineering.

John Buzzota (the AR engineer who was making the L3 presentation to the BAS) told us that the 3 used a very expensive 'brand-name' tweeter--I forget which one-- that actually performed WORSE than a less-expensive Vifa. But this particular individual at AR (whose name I won't reveal) insisted on using it anyway, feeling the so-called cachet of having that tweeter was worth it. They had to design a more complex, more expensive crossover because they used that tweeter, just to maintain the overall performance.

Adding a sub doesn't count--I'm talking about full-range, stand-alone AR speakers. Besides, I'll make the purely arbitrary ruling that all three speakers you mention are too rare when considered on a sales or market life basis to qualify for consideration.

interesting info on the L3, its a shame when you realize how much was left in engineering. i've read somewhere here that the MGC-1 bass performance was not what KK had in mind when he developed the speakers, but that the powers that be at AR did not want it to outpace the low end of prior AR great speakers, so he had to compromise and use dual 8" drivers. i knew the addition of a sub wouldnt count, i just couldnt think of any possible contenders to the crown without using one. i have no qualms about giving the not to the 9, its the one i would have picked as well.

i think the AR9 lives up to the hype, but is also a greatly misunderstood speaker as well. several years ago, and over several different occasions, i have compared the 9 directly in the same room with the Tannoy Berkeley, Vandersteen 2c and a host of other speakers. against the Tannoy and Vandersteen, i was a quite surprised and a bit disappointed with the 9. in the words of one of the others who was there on both occasions; "the 9 got its ass handed to it". since that time i've taken steps to place them as well in my room as it will allow, and to drive them with adequate amplification (at some point in there i also replaced the mid-bass drivers which had been improperly re-coned). on hearing my current configuration, the guy who made the above quote agrees with me that neither the Berkeley nor the 2c would best the 9.

i have heard many times where people have come away from hearing the 9 less than impressed. in each case they were either underpowered or not placed correctly in the room (and on at least one occasion they had mechanical problems). the 9 is not easy to get setup for optimal sound and because of that sometimes get classified as a less than stellar speaker, however no one who's heard my current configuration thinks that.

[ar_pro]

Good points.

Any evaluation of the AR-9 must take the physical condition of the now 30+ year-old loudspeaker into account - I've seen woofers with aged surrounds, incorrect surrounds, patched-together 12" surrounds, etc. For a period of time in the early '90s, the factory-authorized lower-midrange replacement had a plastic cone (!), not to mention the issues with aging crossover components, or intermittant/poor contacts on those problematic level switches.

If the system isn't restored correctly, and with original parts, then you just don't have an AR-9, and for this reason, I try to keep replacement drivers around whenever possible. Good luck finding that 8" lower midrange at a garage sale!

Further, the AR-9's performance is extremely amplifier-dependant - I've heard them with many popular manufacturers' amps, and have found that plenty of well-regulated, solid-state power is practically a requirement. My favorite combination is with large McIntosh amplifiers, but the old Adcom 555II series and Crown PS-400 have also provided excellent results at a very low price.

[d-rok]

Good points.

Any evaluation of the AR-9 must take the physical condition of the now 30+ year-old loudspeaker into account - I've seen woofers with aged surrounds, incorrect surrounds, patched-together 12" surrounds, etc. For a period of time in the early '90s, the factory-authorized lower-midrange replacement had a plastic cone (!), not to mention the issues with aging crossover components, or intermittant/poor contacts on those problematic level switches.

If the system isn't restored correctly, and with original parts, then you just don't have an AR-9, and for this reason, I try to keep replacement drivers around whenever possible. Good luck finding that 8" lower midrange at a garage sale!

Further, the AR-9's performance is extremely amplifier-dependant - I've heard them with many popular manufacturers' amps, and have found that plenty of well-regulated, solid-state power is practically a requirement. My favorite combination is with large McIntosh amplifiers, but the old Adcom 555II series and Crown PS-400 have also provided excellent results at a very low price.

I'm new to the world of AR, and recently acquired a pair of the 9's. I'm not sure what "under-powering" means as I've been running the Carver M1.0t paired with 101db sens. speakers for quite some time. But I DO know that biamping the 9's with 2 Carver M1.0t's does the job....and VERY well..IMO. I'm all set as far as drivers go... all 12" side firing and 8" lower MRD's have been professionally refoamed recently. I will need to locate a matching upper MRD and tweeter as the midranges in mine are different in color...one black ringed and the other silver ringed. And a tweeter was replaced with an OEM from AB Tech and though it seems to sound the same, it doesn't look the same. BUT ABOUT CAPS IN THE CROSSOVERS...can anyone point me in the right direction on having mine recapped back to specs?? Mine are the 1979 models.

[ar_pro]

The silver paint was left off of some AR-9 midrange drivers, and I suspect that they were later factory replacements.

I've never actually seen a blown midrange, so most damaged drivers were probably due to finger-pokes, etc.

It might be a good idea to check the backs of your drivers - the correct part number is 200028.

The AB Tech tweeter is definitely not the same as the stock AR-9 (part number 200029-1).

There's been a lot written regarding recapping the AR-9 (just do a search) - its an expensive proposition, but a good idea for these 30 year-old speakers.

[d-rok]

The silver paint was left off of some AR-9 midrange drivers, and I suspect that they were later factory replacements.

I've never actually seen a blown midrange, so most damaged drivers were probably due to finger-pokes, etc.

It might be a good idea to check the backs of your drivers - the correct part number is 200028.

The AB Tech tweeter is definitely not the same as the stock AR-9 (part number 200029-1).

There's been a lot written regarding recapping the AR-9 (just do a search) - its an expensive proposition, but a good idea for these 30 year-old speakers.

Thanks for the info. My numbers are: lower woofers 1210032 - 01148

lower mrd 1210043 - 08

upper mrd's 1200028

tweeter 1200029

No number on the back of the "non-original" tweeter. The seller claims to have purchased this replacement tweeter from a company called AB Tech Services.

I've looked up that site and their replacement tweeters are basically smooth and have in them what looks to be 4 small screws in them.(I'm guessing for the diaphram/driver motor???)

HOWEVER the replacement tweeter in mine doesn't look to have any screws in it. It's basically concave and smooth.

Also, would you know of anyone who would have an original owners manual for the 1978-79 AR9 they would "lease" to me.

I have a local print guy that makes professional copies for me that turn out looking better than the original and am willing to pay a deposit to get my hands on one to copy.

[dingus]

...Also, would you know of anyone who would have an original owners manual for the 1978-79 AR9 they would "lease" to me.

the library here at the CSP has the manual;

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/library...ls/ar-9_manual/

might not be of the quality you are looking for....

[d-rok]

the library here at the CSP has the manual;

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/library...ls/ar-9_manual/

might not be of the quality you are looking for....

Thanks for the info. I've got a copy of the pages stored. And you are correct, I'm wanting to get my hands on an original(for purchase OR to have a pro copy made. Thanks.

[mike tarelli]

Thanks for the info. My numbers are: lower woofers 1210032 - 01148

lower mrd 1210043 - 08

upper mrd's 1200028

tweeter 1200029

No number on the back of the "non-original" tweeter. The seller claims to have purchased this replacement tweeter from a company called AB Tech Services.

I've looked up that site and their replacement tweeters are basically smooth and have in them what looks to be 4 small screws in them.(I'm guessing for the diaphram/driver motor???)

HOWEVER the replacement tweeter in mine doesn't look to have any screws in it. It's basically concave and smooth.

Also, would you know of anyone who would have an original owners manual for the 1978-79 AR9 they would "lease" to me.

I have a local print guy that makes professional copies for me that turn out looking better than the original and am willing to pay a deposit to get my hands on one to copy.

Difficult to see it clearly but that replacement looks like the AB Tech tweeter for the AR11.

[rrcrain]

The silver paint was left off of some AR-9 midrange drivers, and I suspect that they were later factory replacements.

I've never actually seen a blown midrange, so most damaged drivers were probably due to finger-pokes, etc.

It might be a good idea to check the backs of your drivers - the correct part number is 200028.

The AB Tech tweeter is definitely not the same as the stock AR-9 (part number 200029-1).

There's been a lot written regarding recapping the AR-9 (just do a search) - its an expensive proposition, but a good idea for these 30 year-old speakers.

I've had a failed upper midrage driver where the voice coil came out of the gap. Don't ask me how, I don't have that answer. The first replacement driver I received had the same problem on receipt, the second replacement was good.

[genek]

Difficult to see it clearly but that replacement looks like the AB Tech tweeter for the AR11.

ABTech is offering the same tweeter as "replacement" for everything from the 3x to 9x. Probably better than a dead tweeter, but nowhere near original sound for any of the models.

[d-rok]

ABTech is offering the same tweeter as "replacement" for everything from the 3x to 9x. Probably better than a dead tweeter, but nowhere near original sound for any of the models.

I have pulled this tweeter. The number on the back are 1200184AB. It has the AR symbol on the back and a foam cover glued to the front approx. 3/16" thick.

It's glued to the tweeter face pretty well, but I was able to lift a small bit of it enough to see that there are 4 threaded holes at the 10, 2, 4, 8 o'clock positions.

I'm going to call AB Tech Services and see if it's one of theirs. Thanks guys. ANY info on these as well as where to find original parts for these is GREATLY appreciated.

The only places I know to search is eBay, AB Tech Services and a vintage_ar store on eBay.

[ar_pro]

d-rok, your speakers look excellent, and all of your part numbers check out, except for that one odd tweeter.

genek is right - the AB tech tweeter is a last-resort fill in for the correct one.

Also, did you remove your tweeter & midrange inserts?

I can see the little stickers on the one good tweeter and around the mid domes for the inserts. If you still have them, you might want to put them back - they do make a difference.

[d-rok]

d-rok, your speakers look excellent, and all of your part numbers check out, except for that one odd tweeter.

genek is right - the AB tech tweeter is a last-resort fill in for the correct one.

Also, did you remove your tweeter & midrange inserts?

I can see the little stickers on the one good tweeter and around the mid domes for the inserts. If you still have them, you might want to put them back - they do make a difference.

Nope. I don't have the inserts that go around the tweeters or upper mids. (and that one odd tweeter has a # 120032AB on the back.)But today I DID locate a guy out in CA parting out his. SO...to be certain I fall in love with the sound the AR9 was designed to produce I picked up 4 freshly refoamed woofers #'s 200003, 2 freshly refoamed lower mids, #'s 200027, 2 upper mid dome drivers with the raised silver rings, #'s 200028 and 2 tweeter with the silver ring just around the dome hole,#'s 200029.They have the rear mounting gaskets as well as the original foam ring that velcro's on to them....SO, if I can locate(or determine exactly what the foam inserts around the upper mids are made of and make my own) I should be all set to hear what the 1978-79 AR9 is supposed to sound like. Does anyone happen to know HOW to determine what year model I have. The serial numbers on the cabinets are 009200 and 009260. Thanks for all the great info/input and advice guys....ONE LAST QUESTION...IS GOING WITH ALL ORIGINAL DRIVERS IN THESE GOING TO MAKE THAT MUCH DIFFERENCE and was it worth the trouble and expense in doing so.??

These things sound GREAT to me at present.

[d-rok]

Nope. I don't have the inserts that go around the tweeters or upper mids. The "oddball tweeter has a number that ends in AB (AB Tech??)

But here's where I'm at now...........

Keeping in mind that these replacement drivers were put in by the previous owner around 1999-2000, as he recalls and I am under the impression that original drivers from 1978-79 sounded much better than the later dated replacements, I have just purchased the following freshly refoamed drivers from a guy out in CA that is parting out a pair..

4 WOOFERS....................#'s 200003----------------------------------------------------->> Mine currently have the #'s 1210043-08

2 lower MID DRIVERS.... #'s 200027 (with square magnets)--------------------------->> Mine currently have the #'s 1210045-08 (and have round magnets.)

2 UPPER MID DRIVERS.....#'s 200028---BOTH with raised silver rings, so I now have a spare silver ringed and an extra black ringed upper mid (if anyone is looking for one.)

2 TWEETERS....................#'s 200029...with the smaller silver ring around the hole for the dome,(complete with rear foam gaskets and foam rings for their face) so I now have a matching spare and an extra

AB Tech Replacement.

I'M HOPING SOMEONE CAN ME THAT THIS WILL GREATLY IMPROVE THEIR SOUND (as well as originality) AND I DIDN'T JUST WASTE A BUNCH OF MONEY ON A BUNCH OF SPARE DRIVERS.

They are, however, freshly refoamed, so I guess that's a bit of a plus...BUT WILL THEY BRING MUCH CLOSER TO THE ORIGINAL SOUND?????

And if anyone has any ideas on where to locate the foam inserts for the lower mids, I'd certainly be happt to learn that.(or know exactly what they're made of so I can maybe make my own.

ALSO...DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW TO DETERMINE WHAT YEAR MODEL THESE ACTUALLY ARE ???..Cabinet serial numbers are 009200 and 009260.

The only thing I really have to go on is to compare the numbers on the upper mids and the 1 original tweeter with the parts Price List dated January 1, 1979

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/library...ce_sheet_j.html

[heland]

I think perhaps you will not like me when I make this suggestion...although I will deflect it to those erudite members of this forum who got me started.There is no doubt that correct drivers are the only way to go ...step one.Step two may well involve replacing the caps inside.It was recommended to me as a must do and I am so pleased I did.The speakers sounded good when I bought them...surrounds recently done,new wire and plug receivers (?) for the back The new caps made a very noticable difference...as though a veil had been lifted.I love mine and did at one point ask my bride if she had hugged them.The reply was a slightly embarressed affirmative until I admitted my similar fixation.

regards

Andrew

[mike tarelli]

I have pulled this tweeter. The number on the back are 1200184AB. It has the AR symbol on the back and a foam cover glued to the front approx. 3/16" thick.

It's glued to the tweeter face pretty well, but I was able to lift a small bit of it enough to see that there are 4 threaded holes at the 10, 2, 4, 8 o'clock positions.

I'm going to call AB Tech Services and see if it's one of theirs. Thanks guys. ANY info on these as well as where to find original parts for these is GREATLY appreciated.

The only places I know to search is eBay, AB Tech Services and a vintage_ar store on eBay.

1200084AB is the AB Tech tweeter for the AR3a/11 etc.

[genek]

There have been several comparisons between the ABTech tweeter and original 3x and 1x tweeters, and the consensus is that the ABTech unit can't match the dispersion of the originals and requires crossover mods to match their tone. I don't think we've seen similar comparisons between ABTech and 9x units, however. We do know that the later models were designed for brighter sound and used tweeter rings and inserts to narrow their HF dispersion to improve imaging, so perhaps you and other 9x owners who have tried the ABTech tweeter are in a position to tell us how well they do as replacements by posting your listening impressions.

If you read past discussions on recapping on this site, you will find that some of our most knowledgeable posters who are/were designers for the speaker brands this site is devoted to have offered the views that 1) only a small percentage of the capacitors that get replaced in vintage speaker recaps actually need replacement, 2) most caps manufactured after the mid-seventies are probably still good, and 3) changing the caps may change the sound, but won't necessarily restore original performance or improve the sound. So replacing all the caps without first testing to see if it's really needed is basically a crap shoot, and for some speakers like the 9's, it can be a fairly expensive one.

I don't think anyone can tell anyone else whether anything done to restore vintage speakers is "worth it." That's a personal evaluation, and in my experience one I can almost never make until I've actually taken the plunge.

[d-rok]

I think perhaps you will not like me when I make this suggestion...although I will deflect it to those erudite members of this forum who got me started.There is no doubt that correct drivers are the only way to go ...step one.Step two may well involve replacing the caps inside.It was recommended to me as a must do and I am so pleased I did.The speakers sounded good when I bought them...surrounds recently done,new wire and plug receivers (?) for the back The new caps made a very noticable difference...as though a veil had been lifted.I love mine and did at one point ask my bride if she had hugged them.The reply was a slightly embarressed affirmative until I admitted my similar fixation.

regards

Andrew

It seems many AR9 owners(as well as many other vintage loudspeaker owners) share that very same theory...recap the crossovers.

Mind if I ask what caps were used in yours and who did the job? As well as what might I expect to pay to have this parts/labor done to mine.

I do not know enough about electronics or solder well enough to attempt this project on my own.

Thanks again for your advice and knowledge.

[d-rok]

There have been several comparisons between the ABTech tweeter and original 3x and 1x tweeters, and the consensus is that the ABTech unit can't match the dispersion of the originals and requires crossover mods to match their tone. I don't think we've seen similar comparisons between ABTech and 9x units, however. We do know that the later models were designed for brighter sound and used tweeter rings and inserts to narrow their HF dispersion to improve imaging, so perhaps you and other 9x owners who have tried the ABTech tweeter are in a position to tell us how well they do as replacements by posting your listening impressions.

If you read past discussions on recapping on this site, you will find that some of our most knowledgeable posters who are/were designers for the speaker brands this site is devoted to have offered the views that 1) only a small percentage of the capacitors that get replaced in vintage speaker recaps actually need replacement, 2) most caps manufactured after the mid-seventies are probably still good, and 3) changing the caps may change the sound, but won't necessarily restore original performance or improve the sound. So replacing all the caps without first testing to see if it's really needed is basically a crap shoot, and for some speakers like the 9's, it can be a fairly expensive one.

I don't think anyone can tell anyone else whether anything done to restore vintage speakers is "worth it." That's a personal evaluation, and in my experience one I can almost never make until I've actually taken the plunge.

Very well put. I have only "restored" one other speaker: that being the Cerwin Vega D-9. I was able to own 5 pairs of them at once and in doing so was shocked to hear the difference in each pair. HUGE difference. So that got me to pulling drivers and crossovers and running some numbers. In doing so I learned that during it's manufacture life span between 1984-92, CV used 3 different woofer cones in the 152WR 15", 4 different variations in crossover networks and 2 different manufactureres of the CS5 tweeter. The result of my efforts proved with my ears (and with the testing "scope" of a buddy of mine) that the 1st woofer cone used, the 2nd variation of crossover and the later (after 1988) Taiwan manufactured tweeters (they started with Japan) sounded a night a day difference over the components they paired/used after 1988. So I'm hoping that I can get a much better sound in going with the early 1978-79 woofers/drivers in the AR9's. I'm also hoping for the same "night and day" differencewhen I put them in.

(not that they don't sound GREAT just the way they are. But the D-9 sounded great to me too, until I learned pairing the right internals made a "MIRACLE".)

As for D-9's.... if one was to put on a blindfold and listen to a side by side comparison of the early and later built D-9's they would pretty much swear to the fact that they were hearing two ENTIRELY different speakers. YES, there was THAT much of a noticable difference: in the early models winning the sound test by a LAND SLIDE.

I will do some very close listening comparisons in the 200029 and the ABTech replacement tweeters and post what I come up with.

I'm not sure how "accurate" my opinion will be because though I can tell these AR9's are VERY GOOD speakers(imo) I know I don't have them set up properly and won't be able to set them up properly due to my lack of room.

[mluong303]

Metallized Polypropylene Capacitors from Axon and Solen(both from France) are very close in quality and price. So either one is fine for the job. Just buy the same value caps you need and solder them one by one with a 40watts solder iron and flux cored solderer. It is not too complicate of a job.

http://www.zalytron.com/ and click on capacitors for value and price.

Solen supplier is in Canada and the price is very reasonable. Buy the 250V rating is more than adequate, no need to waste money on the 400V rating. Solen Non Polar Electrolytic capacitors are now available to paralleled up for the large value caps to save money.

http://www.solen.ca/pub/cms_nf_catalogue.p...Glvbj0zJmZ0PW5m

Minh Luong