ninohernes Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 I have a pair of AR-2's and I use them in my studio as monitors, I love them, the bass is tight and the high frequency range is excelent. This pair has been in the family since thier purchace in 1960. So, do any of you have AR-2's and if so, what do you like or dislike about them?Mine are walnut finish, the shiny walnut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger3834 Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 From a collectors standpoint, you have some great speakers. The fact that they still sound great today is a testament to their great design and build quality. 1960 was quite a while ago, that was the year of the Nixon/Kennedy election and at that time most North Americans still percolated coffee !! Do you have them sitting horizontally or vertically ? I believe that the dual, inward facing 5" tweeters had better horizontal dispersion when placed horizontally. Also, I think that this was the most comman way to place them at the time. I place my 1965/1966 era 2ax's horizontally, just for the look (dual emblems). My post 1970 2ax's and my 4x's get flipped now and again. That's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninohernes Posted January 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Yes, I do have them on shelves horizontally, they are finished on 3 sides, the unfinished side is obviously down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger3834 Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 I forgot about that one side unfinished thing. Why the heck did they do that anyway ?? AR probably had a good reason for this. I'm sure that Tom Tyson has some AR-2's in his collection, and he knows everything ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninohernes Posted January 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Price was the reason for this. The AR-2 was intended to be the lower cost AR speaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charger3834 Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 The marginal cost of finishing the forth side would have been very small. The base price was $89.00, your walnut ones were $102.00. If someone paid for the premium finish, why would they not get 4 finished sides ? I think AR may have done this intentionally, as they may have intended for this speaker to lay horizontally in order to maximize high frequency dispersion. The 2a (4 finished sides) has a super- tweeter for frequencies over 7500 cycles. This would improve the high frequency dispersion for vertical placement. It's only a theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninohernes Posted January 23, 2003 Author Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tysontom Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 >I forgot about that one side unfinished thing. Why the heck >did they do that anyway ?? AR probably had a good reason for >this. >>I'm sure that Tom Tyson has some AR-2's in his collection, >and he knows everything ! You are too kind, but it's great to be flattered even if you are joking! Truth is, Ken Kantor knows everything. I know a little AR history. Someone else has answered this qestion about the AR-2's three finished sides: AR figured no one would ever mount these speakers vertically because, after all, they were "bookshelf" speakers, and the fact that proper dispersion dictated horizontal placement. It would save a little money, as AR struggled to make a profit on the AR-2 when it was first introduced in 1957.I only own a single AR-2, a lowly unfinished-pine version. --Tom Tyson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tysontom Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 >1960 was quite a while ago, that was the year of the Nixon/Kennedy >election and at that time most North Americans still percolated >coffee !! >Coincidentally, both Nixon and (I think) Kennedy were AR owners.--Tom Tyson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 Brought a set of 2's over to a friends house and hooked up my real time analyzer. He also has a pair of 3's. We ran pink noise through his stereo. The 2's were clearly the winner as far as which was a flatter speaker in his room. The 3's had more low end but the 2's made up for it in the mids and highs. We always wondered if upgrading the dual driver would be worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tysontom Posted January 24, 2003 Report Share Posted January 24, 2003 >Brought a set of 2's over to a friends house and hooked up >my real time analyzer. He also has a pair of 3's. We ran >pink noise through his stereo. The 2's were clearly the >winner as far as which was a flatter speaker in his room. >The 3's had more low end but the 2's made up for it in the >mids and highs. We always wondered if upgrading the dual >driver would be worth it. If you measured both speakers in the near field, up fairly close, no doubt the AR-2 would seem flatter since it has nowhere near the interference effects that the AR-3 exhibits. It is a more directional speaker, and the two 5-inch Carbonneau drivers are fairly uniform on-axis up to about 13-14 kHz. The AR-3 at close range has a system response that is frightening, but move the measurement mike to another position, and all the peaks and valleys change position. The best test would be to get well back in the listening room at different points, to get the average acoustic-power response, and the AR-3 should easily exhibit a wider response with much-more extended high-frequency range. --Tom Tyson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninohernes Posted February 1, 2003 Author Report Share Posted February 1, 2003 Does anyone know the power handling capacity for the AR-2? I am currently using a 60-watt per channel Hafler amp, it drives them well with no distortion. I don’t really want to go any higher because I know the tweeters are delicate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tysontom Posted February 2, 2003 Report Share Posted February 2, 2003 >Does anyone know the power handling capacity for the AR-2? I >am currently using a 60-watt per channel Hafler amp, it >drives them well with no distortion. I don’t really want to >go any higher because I know the tweeters are delicate. There was never a definitive "maximum-power" rating for any of the AR speakers (or any other speaker, for that matter), simply because there is no way to determine that in any practical sense. There is, for example, a maximum, long-term power consideration, a peak-power consideration, etc. The type program material -- rock vs. classical vs. sine-wave testing, and so forth. What AR did was to list the "minimum" power, and suggest a fuse size that would protect the speaker against certain overload conditions. For the AR-2, the minimum power recommended was 20-watts RMS per channel. The recommended fuse was the Buss Fusetron FNM 6/10 dual-element (like a motor-start) fuse, that allows pretty big peaks but protects against long-term high power such as sine-wave testing at high frequencies, or certain types of music with sustained mid-range and high-frequency power. Since the 6/10 will pass peaks of about 200 watts, it is safe to say that the amplifier you are using is probably ideal for almost any circumstance. Theoretically, if your amp was pushed too hard and began "clipping," it could put too much power into the tweeters. In this instance, the amplifier would have run out of "headroom" before the speaker reached its limits, and damage could result if the speaker were not fused. What AR used to say, however, is that fusing would not protect the speakers against certain catastropic occurrances, such as accidentally plugging the speaker into a wall socket. The speaker would be damaged before the fuse would open. Incidentally, the AR-2, with its two 5-inch tweeters, actually is more immune from thermal damage than the AR-2a, which has the dome super tweeter above 7500Hz.--Tom Tyson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.