Speakers I wished AR had done

[Steve F]

When I was younger and more heavily-invested in AR (emotionally, that is! I’ve never had any official, financial relationship to AR), I’d often think about what new speakers they could introduce.

There are two speakers I wished they’d done.

The first is an 8” 3-way version of the 5/3a. I think that if they’d come out with a speaker around 1970-ish using the newly-developed AR-6 8” woofer, and the 5’s 1 ½” mid and ¾” tweeter, it would have been a great speaker.

The 6 had truly great bass response for a compact speaker (Julian Hirsch said its LF response was virtually identical to the 2ax/5 and AR’s own specs for system resonance confirm this), and a trim, easy-to-place cabinet.

The result would have been the ‘perfect’ den/dorm/small room speaker—terrific sound and unobtrusive appearance. It would probably have been a little pricey—around the cost of the 2ax, with the less expensive woofer and less expensive smaller cabinet being offset by the greatly more expensive midrange driver—but that would have been one classy little speaker.

The other speaker I wished they’d done was to come out with a different LST-2 than they did. My feeling was that one of the reasons the LST was so successful was because it retained the AR 12” bass response while curing the ‘not enough highs’ issue. There were lots of other reasons for its success, obviously, but its sound was the main one.

The LST-2 threw away AR’s strongest calling card—that 12” 35 Hz low end. Now you had a very expensive (by 1974 standards) $400 speaker that only made it down to the low 50’s.

What I think AR should have done was this—retain the 12” woofer in the same enclosure as the original LST. Reduce the number of tweeters from 4 to 3 (one centered on the front panel above the woofer, one each on the side panels as in the original LST), and reduce the number of midranges from 4 to 2 (one each on the side panels). Reduce the Autotransformer positions from 6 to 3, as was done on the LST-2.

This would have retained the same radiation pattern as the original LST, retained the same prized 12” LF response of the original LST, and still provided a very significant upgrade in power-handling and mid-HF output over the 3a. Not as much as the “LST-1,” but still quite an improvement over the 3a.

The reduction in mids from 4 to 2, in tweeters from 4 to 3, and in Autotransformer complexity from 6 pos. to 3 would have provided very significant cost reduction, to support a retail of $400 ea. Plus, the cabinet purchases would be greatly increased, lowering their cost, and the same for the packaging—identical, higher volume purchases, therefore lower costs.

A 12” $400 “LST-2” as described above would have been vastly more successful than the actual LST-2 was, in my view.

Looking back 35-40 years with 20-20 hindsight is pure conjecture, I know. Nothing can be proven one way or the other. But these are two speakers I always wished they had done.

Steve F.

[genek]

The 6 had truly great bass response for a compact speaker (Julian Hirsch said its LF response was virtually identical to the 2ax/5 and AR’s own specs for system resonance confirm this), and a trim, easy-to-place cabinet.

I have a 3a, a 2ax and a 6. The 6 does indeed have impressive bass for a compact speaker, but regardless of how its LF response measures, there is stiff definitely something "not there" compared to the 2ax. Not to say that a 3-way based on it wouldn't have been good, but my guess is it would have had to sell for pretty much the same price as a 2ax and would have ended up as an "AR-5 Jr." in sales (or lack thereof). The 60's and 70's were as much "bigger is better" mindset eras for electronics as they were for cars.

[tysontom]

When I was younger and more heavily-invested in AR (emotionally, that is! I’ve never had any official, financial relationship to AR), I’d often think about what new speakers they could introduce.

There are two speakers I wished they’d done.

The first is an 8” 3-way version of the 5/3a. I think that if they’d come out with a speaker around 1970-ish using the newly-developed AR-6 8” woofer, and the 5’s 1 ½” mid and ¾” tweeter, it would have been a great speaker.

The other speaker I wished they’d done was to come out with a different LST-2 than they did. My feeling was that one of the reasons the LST was so successful was because it retained the AR 12” bass response while curing the ‘not enough highs’ issue. There were lots of other reasons for its success, obviously, but its sound was the main one.

Steve F.

Following is my "wish" for a speaker from AR:

The AR-9 "Special"

I wish AR had introduced a special, all-out "powered" AR-9 and AR-90. With a powered version, the woofers could have been taken "flat" down to 20 Hz, thus ever eliminating the need for subwoofers down the road. In doing so, the back plate of the 200003-0 woofer could be "bumped," and the voice coil lengthened further for longer-yet excursion, and the result could have been the undisputed leader in low-bass, low-distortion performance among commercial loudspeakers. The woofers would have the approximate performance of the renowned NHT 1259 woofers originally used (in single configuration) in the NHT 3.3 of several years back. Amplification for the AR-9 "Special" would be approximately 1000 watts/ch (class D) for the low-frequency section and 500 watts or so for the top, high-frequency section. Special single-ended (RCA) or balanced-line (XLR) long cables could be included with the purchase of this speaker system.

I also wish the AR-9 cabinet could have been re-designed to be more slender at the top, reducing further any cabinet-edge-reflection issues (already minor in the existing AR-9), and perhaps adding a MTM D'Appolito-style midrange/tweeter performance -- improving the already superb AR-9 performance. The side-mounted woofers could be recessed back into the cabinet a bit more, thus allowing a "flush," recessed side-grill arrangement rather than the somewhat unsightly, external-mounted grills along the bottom sides. Additional wood finishes might have been offered, too, to appease more décor-oriented buyers. Can you imagine a pair of AR-9 "Specials" in Teak or Rosewood? By the way, the MTM arrangement would give the AR-9 "Special" two 1½-inch dome midrange drivers flanking the ¾-inch dome tweeter (also lowering the tweeter more to ear level for seated listeners) for even greater power-handling capability, with less "lobing" and other untoward characteristics characteristic of the existing arrangement.

Ironically, AR did plan a "powered" version (much less elaborate than the Tyson version above), but it was shot down due to cost considerations. C. Victor Campos championed the powered speaker, but Tim Holl decided against the idea as commercially impractical and too expensive, and that decision was probably correct for the times and the market-segment.

--Tom Tyson

[ar_pro]

Interesting idea, Tom, but I don't have nearly the confidence in AR's ability to provide first-rate amplification as I do that of McIntosh

In a more perfect world, I would love to have seen Acoustic Research devote the amount of care to their drivers' appearance as did JBL - of course, AR's drivers were not really meant to be seen, having evolved behind that non-removable grille cloth and all, but just imagine what a 9 would look like with cast-framed cone drivers and aluminum-faced mids & tweeters. Package it all in a Wilson-type cabinet for $20K, and it would be a world-beater.

And as long as I'm dreaming, how about a 3-way, stand-mounted design with the classic 12" woofer, the 8" lower mid from the AR-9, and a Heil air-motion tweeter?!?

[Steve F]

I have a 3a, a 2ax and a 6. The 6 does indeed have impressive bass for a compact speaker, but regardless of how its LF response measures, there is stiff definitely something "not there" compared to the 2ax. Not to say that a 3-way based on it wouldn't have been good, but my guess is it would have had to sell for pretty much the same price as a 2ax and would have ended up as an "AR-5 Jr." in sales (or lack thereof). The 60's and 70's were as much "bigger is better" mindset eras for electronics as they were for cars.

Full credit to kk for doing the 8" version of the '5/3a' in with his model 338. The 303 was the '3a,', the 302 was the '5,' and the 338 was the 8" 3-way with dome mid-tweet that I had always wished AR would have done years before.

I never heard the 338 myself, but from the limited things I've read about it, it was a fine little speaker. Probably not a great seller, as genek opines. But it was a configuration I would have been most interested in for smaller rooms in my home.

Steve F.