Is the 9 is the 'best' AR?

[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.

I have had a chance to listen and compare differences in the ABTech replacement and the original 200029-1 AR tweeter.

My original does not have a foam absorber ring on it, though the ABTech Tweeter has foam glued to the face of it.

In putting my ears right up to the individual tweeters, it easy to hear the differences. The AR tweeter has a much cleaner, softer and detailed sound:for lack of a better description it sounds as if it has much more "depth and substance" to it. The ABTech tweeter sort of "hisses" in comparison.

Sitting back and hearing them at a normal listening volume is where the real difference is heard.AR tweeter is smoother and more detailed.

And when "pouring the coals" to them (approx. 450wpc) the AR still remains clean and precise: the ABTech basically hisses, only much louder.

My opinion is: they were right, the ABTech is better than no tweeter at all, but the originals seem to "blend" much better.

BUT keep in mind that my lower mid drivers and side firing woofers are from ABTech as well, so my description in comparing these may not be the same with all originals.

I will, however, keep the AB tweeter in when my original woofers and drivers are put in to give it another try with them. Of course it will only stay in long enough to compare it.

Mine sound great but I'm guessing I'm not hearing anywhere near what they really sound like, so I'm looking forward to their arrival.

If there's that much difference in the sound of a tweeter not being original, I'm thinking installing all original drivers is going to make a tremendous upgrade in the sound of these.

[Mexicomike]

As was previously noted, it depends a lot on what you want out of a speaker. I find the LST to be an extremely "involving" speaker due to it's ability to throw an excellent sound stage and present an amazing "you are there" perception with a good source recording. THe 9 may be more accurate - probably is since it is a newer design - but the LST is a tough speaker to beat from a "listening experience" point of view.

[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

I now have all the original drivers in and have had both M-1.0t amps recapped and MKII opt.2 upgraded (585wpc/4ohm)...WOW !!!!

IMO not only is the AR9 the Best sounding AR in the pack, they're about the best overall speaker I've ever had the pleasure of owning.

[Mexicomike]

I now have all the original drivers in and have had both M-1.0t amps recapped and MKII opt.2 upgraded (585wpc/4ohm)...WOW !!!!

IMO not only is the AR9 the Best sounding AR in the pack, they're about the best overall speaker I've ever had the pleasure of owning.

When I was looking for new speakers in the mid-late '80s I auditioned the 9s but ended up preferring/buying Nestorovic 5AS speakers. The Nessys were the best speakers I had ever heard up to that time - at least within my price range. Sadly, my ex-wife got them so I use classic AR's instead! (3As/LSTs)

[rl1856]

Was the 9 the "best" ? That may depend on what you believe the intent of the company was. To me, the 3-3a-LST-9 were designed to be the best reproducer of music, given the available technology of the times in which the speakers were produced.

If you read the contempory articles, reviews, brochures etc you can get a feel for what AR was trying to do. IMHO the 9 was the culmination of the designers intent to deliver flat in room response.

The 3a was flawed in that it had a stepped response curve that mostly evened out at the recomended listening distance. Flat HF response could be achieved by the judicious use of the preamp treble control and speaker level pots. AR specified 3a flat response as achievable with the treble pot at "max" and the treble control at +3db. The LST added multiple drivers so that the combined midrange and treble output was flat out of the box, without a need for external adjustment. The use of an autoformer in the bass assisted in the integration of the lowest octaves with the room in which they were placed. The LST succeeded by delivering flat in room response, but at the expense of needing careful room placement and prodigious quantities of clean high current power. The 9 was the real world successor. Thanks to improvements in driver design, it was possible to produce mid and tweeter drivers that could deliver flat in room response without the need for multiple drivers in the same cabinet. The tall box and damping material reduced edge diffraction distorion and improved stereo imageing by taking advantage of the narrower radiation pattern of the drivers. The side fireing woofers did need careful placement, but were capable of true 20hz response. The result was a speaker that delivered true and flat 20hz-20khz in room response without the need for multiple drivers or external adjustments.

The fact that we are still extolling the virtues of the 9 is probably proof enough of its place in history.

Best,

Ross