AR -303 and AR-3a

[thiptoman]

I realize that the AR-303 is a remake of the AR-3a's. Due to the fact that the designer chose to go with the AR-303 and not the actual AR-3a with its' offset drivers and bullnose cabinet,does this mean that the AR 303 is the better cabinet design? Could the designers please elabarate on their decisions.

[kkantor]

There was some discussion of this here last December, but I am unable to navigate to it at the moment. I'm sure you can find as the forum software stabilizes. Or if you are better at searching than I am.

It's hard to summarize the countless engineering decisions that go into a serious speaker design. There are many, many engineering ideas from the 3a that went into the 303. Then there were other aspects that were changed in order to try and better approach the stated goals of the 3a using more modern techniques. I would opine that when the 3a was developed, cabinet diffraction and driver symmetry simply had not yet entered the design consciousness. I talked at some length with both EV and HK during the development of the 303 to assure that nothing that went into the design would detract from the original engineering intent.

If you asked, for example, the designer of a great sports car of the 50's if they would consider aerodynamics more seriously if they did a modern update, I bet the answer would be, "Yes. If we knew then what we know now, we wouldn't have let the marketing guy who wanted to put those silly fins on it get their way!"

[tysontom]

>I realize that the AR-303 is a remake of the AR-3a's. Due to

>the fact that the designer chose to go with the AR-303 and not

>the actual AR-3a with its' offset drivers and bullnose

>cabinet,does this mean that the AR 303 is the better cabinet

>design? Could the designers please elabarate on their

>decisions.

>

Although I had nothing whatsoever to do with the design of either speaker, I admire them both. I furnished a pair of mint-condition AR-3a's for Julian Hirsch to use in his June, 1995 *Stereo Review* audition of the AR-303. I did receive quite a bit of correspondence from Mr. Hirsch regarding testing both speakers, and for the benefit of the readers here, his comments from a fax on March 25, 1995, were as follows:

"The averaged room response of the two were remarkable similar, although the AR-303 had a markedly superior top end, above about 6,000 Hz. As a result, I set the two controls of the AR-3a to their maximum positions, which I believe was their usual preferred setting from the start if you wanted to sound as good as or better than your competition. The AR-3a was 2 dB more sensitive than the AR-303."

(Tom Tyson Note: putting both level controls at the maximum position will probably result in too much midrange. The usual preferred setting for best response has been to put the midrange slightly above the "dot," and the high-frequency control at or near maximum).

"On-axis MLS response measurements showed that the AR-303 was a clear winner on overall response and flatness. Its bass distortion was also lower than that of the AR-3a (and my old AR-1). In listening comparisons between the 303 and the 3a, the closest match occurred with the 3a controls set to the 'dots,' giving the two a very similar overall sound character. This was consistent with what I heard using a variety of program material. My conclusion was that the AR-303 has the best and deepest bass of any current speaker in its size range, and that a subwoofer is really not needed to improve it. I did couple it with my HSU subwoofers, and except for bringing out some 20-25 Hz. organ pedals a bit more prominently, it did nothing for the overall bass performance. Actually, this was the first speaker I have come across in recent years for which that could be said."

So it would seem that Ken Kantor and his staff (notably Bill Bush) succeeded in achieving their goals of keeping the family resemblence, yet improving an already-excellent design!

--Tom Tyson