Problems with the AR-3a, tweeter upgrade, & need info on other AR models; building the perfect AR speaker

[XP-15B]

For years I have lived with a pair of vintage, AR-3a loudspeakers. I have been experimenting with high-end and vintage audio since approximately 1996 or 1997, having run through a ridiculously long and impressive list of speakers, vintage to modern, from the sublime to the ridiculous. What I have loved about the AR-3a is that the overall picture is smooth, even-handed, and highly musical. They are not the perfect speaker. In fact, speakers in general, represent a series of compromises. It's just a question of which compromises you are willing to live with. For me, I am driven crazy by uncontrolled resonance in a driver. This phenomenon will kill a speaker for me instantly. I'm talking about what happens during peaks in the music or challenging passages. Most loudspeakers have a weak point where they will break up and get out of control, resulting in the characteristic shriek or yelping sound. Nearly all dynamic speakers do this at some point. Horn systems are the worst, of course. The speaker that I've found, thus far, that seems to have the best behaved drivers is the AR-3a. As I said, though; the AR-3a has it's problems as well:

1) The original tweeter lacks refinement and sophistication on a number of levels. A suitable replacement is necessary. I have solved this issue with a SEAS Excel series model(as used in Harbeth Monitor 30) that was a drop-in replacement and seems to integrate fantastically into the system. I am happy with the results, thought at some point I would like to know how to modify the crossover so that the tweeter integrates according to the original design of the speaker. But with no crossover mods, just using the level control, it sounds vastly superior to the original and it's smooth as silk.

2) The AR-3a does not image well. The drivers are recessed into a cavity and are not lined up straight, nor are they mirror-imaged. This issue could potentially be solved by making a new baffle for the front, mounting the mid driver in the center and making a headpiece for the tweeter. Were it not for other unsolvable issues with the speaker, I would consider doing this. For the time being, I've installed a layer of carpet felt around the drivers to minimize diffraction and to help in bringing things more into focus.

3) The 12" bass/midrange is run up too high, resulting in chesty, whompy, colorations that bleed into the midband. This effect is especially obvious if you, for example, listen to a female vocal on a pair of Quad ESL 57 electrostatic loudspeakers and then compare with the AR-3a. You can hear, quite obviously, the woofer bleeding into the lower registers of the voice and polluting it's clarity and effortless quality. To me, the crossover point of the woofer is too high and should really be somewhere in the 200Hz range. This creates another problem though, in terms of finding a mid-driver that will extent low enough to meet the woofer. Additionally, such a driver will likely need to be larger than the stock, dome midrange as my experience dictates that a small midrange driver can reduce the size and scale of the music. I do love the large scale of the AR-3a; it sounds huge.

I have many questions at this point. Hopefully, some of you can help me:

1) I've never heard the AR-5. I'm wondering if that smaller, 10" driver does a better job of handling the lower end of the midrange spectrum and is perhaps faster and less colored than the 12"?

2) I've never changed the capacitors in my crossover. The thought has also occurred to me that the 12" in my speaker is running way too high...as in higher than the stock specification...due to aging/drifting components. I doubt this is the case, though.

3) How would you describe, in graphic detail please, the sonic difference between the AR-5 and the AR-3a?

4) One potential experiment I have in mind is to use AR-5 woofer, crossover, and mid with my SEAS Excel tweeter and place them all in a slim, sealed-box, well stuffed tower cabinet with all drivers lined up so they will image properly. Is there any reason why this wouldn't work? My design skills are limited. What am I missing here?

5) I am extremely curious about other AR models in my quest for perfection. For example, the AR-98LS. It makes sense on paper to me because of the low crossover point for the woofer, the vertical driver placement, and the large, cone midrange driver. I could add a tweeter of my choice and perhaps have something closer to what I want. In fact, I have a whole list of possible AR models to experiment with. However, what scares me is that I understand that at some point, the AR sound changed and the speakers got brighter. I can't stand bright speakers!

6) Here is my most important question: Please take a look at this list. All of these speakers are models that interest me because they contain either a 10" or 12" woofer and they don't have multiple, midrange drivers or side-firing woofers; things that I don't like. What I wonder about is which of these speakers have a warm, creamy, smooth, and full sound of the AR-3a? Did AR maintain it's quality control in terms of well-behaved drivers or are some of these later-period, cone mids shrieky, nasty, yelping little dogs? Is there a point where AR went completely down the tubes and the speakers were no longer true to their roots; drivers and cabinetry became cheap and poor? WHICH of the speakers from this list are warm, dark, smooth, and even-tempered AND how do they compare to my point of reference; the AR-3a?...

AR-302

AR-302T

AR-303

AR-303A

AR-5

AR-11

AR-12

pi ONE

AR-10 pi

AR-91

AR-92

AR-48s

AR-98LS

AR-9LS

AR-58B

AR-78LS

AR-48B

AR-48BX

AR-58BX

AR-98LSi

AR-58BXi

AR-48BX

Connoisseur 40

Connoisseur 50

TSW-610

TSW-610A

TSW-510A

TSW-510B

TSW-610B

7) Who designed the AR-3 and AR-3a? I know this may seem like a stupid question, but I'm afraid I don't know the answer. Was it Allison alone? I used to have a pair of AR-3, which I thought were lovely. I thought they were a little sweeter and rounder sounding than the AR-3a, which I liked. However, I preferred the AR-3a woofer...which I thought was faster and more tonally accurate in terms of bass fundamentals.

I would be very grateful if some of the experts on this site could comment at length about my situation with regard to building/finding the perfect AR loudspeaker. Thank you!

[ar_pro]

Seems as if you're interested in improved near-field performance, which seems to be the current listening model insofar as a speaker's "imaging" characteristic is concerned.

As has been written many times regarding the AR-3a, it's at its best at a distance, in a (surprise!) bookshelf setting.

Sticking strictly to AR systems:

If you want the extended LF of the 3a, with improved midrange and HF drivers, buy an AR-91.

If you want an improved transition between the LF driver(s) and the upper drivers, buy an AR-90.

If you want it all, buy an AR-9.

[XP-15B]

Seems as if you're interested in improved near-field performance, which seems to be the current listening model insofar as a speaker's "imaging" characteristic is concerned.

As has been written many times regarding the AR-3a, it's at its best at a distance, in a (surprise!) bookshelf setting.

Sticking strictly to AR systems:

If you want the extended LF of the 3a, with improved midrange and HF drivers, buy an AR-91.

If you want an improved transition between the LF driver(s) and the upper drivers, buy an AR-90.

If you want it all, buy an AR-9.

Thank you for your comments! Doesn't the AR-91 feature side-firing woofers? If so, I would not be interested in that model. The AR-90 has my interest, though. Is that a 10" or a 12"? What is the impedance (my amp is sensitive)? Are you saying that the warm, rich, smooth, somewhat-laid back character of the AR-3a is present in the AR-90?

[ar_pro]

No, the AR-90 has a pair of 10" side-firing woofers - the AR-91 is a 3-way speaker (12" front-firing woofer, dome mid & dome tweeter) that is an evolutionary descendant of your AR-3a.

These systems share the advanced drivers used in the top-of-the-line AR-9, and were all improvements on the domes used in earlier AR systems.

The 4-way AR-90 also uses the 8" lower midrange driver of the AR-9, which addresses the woofer-to-midrange issue that you noted in your AR-3a.

There are familial characteristics among most AR speakers - what you refer to as "warm" might be the effect of their truly extended LF response, "laid-back" might refer to the wide-dispersion domes used in the 3, 3a, LST, 10pi, 11, etc. I generally refer to the best AR speakers as natural and musical, with exceptional LF capability.

I've listened to stacked AR-3a speakers on one channel, and a single AR-9 on the other, and there is no doubt that they have very similar sonic signatures. To my ear, though, the advantages of the AR-9 over the 3a are substantial, and while sharing much with the older AR design, the AR-9 easily supplants the 3a, which, of course, had already been effectively replaced as AR's top system by the 10pi and the AR-11.

If you'd like AR's final word on the 3a, I'd suggest the AR-91.

There were a couple of 12" 3-way systems that came after the AR-91, but like the top-of-the-line AR models that "replaced" the AR-9, it's my opinion that they didn't improve on things.

Check the library pages for the AR-9 series - there's a bunch of stuff there on all of these systems.

[soundminded]

AR 12" designs evolved starting with AR1 and culminated with Teledyne AR9, this over a period of approximately 25 to 30 years. All use variants of the same 12" woofer and the same acoustic suspension principle. AR9 however with 2 woofers in a double sized cabinet and crossed over at only 200 hz clearly outperforms all of the others in terms of deep bass response. AR LST improved mid and high frequency dispersion, not necessarily to everyone's liking. IMO it was the best speaker AR produced in this regard, clearly superior to every other model they made. It also could handle more power due to the use of 4 midranges and 4 tweeters. AR303 placed the drivers in a vertical line and they were improved. I think AR3a was designed by Roy Allison and AR303 by Ken Kantor who also designed NHT 3.3. Tonegen produced late versions of the AR 12" woofer and the woofer for the NHT 3.3 The only disadvantages I see to this driver is that its Vas is twice that of AR's design requiring a larger cabinet and it uses a polypropylene cone which makes it more suitable as a subwoofer than as a driver crossed over at 575 hz or 1 khz. (Tom Tyson pointed this out as I recall.)The same or similar woofer was available as the Tonegen 1259 and later evolved into the Madisound 1259 which they claim is not quite the same as the Tonegen model although the specs are suspiciously similar.

AR9 was TOTL adding an 8" lower midrange driver to the two woofers with switches to adjust the levels of the drivers. This was an acknowledgement of the difficulty of designing a 3 way system to cover all 10 audible ocatves. I think this design was produced by Tim Holl whose excellent paper in the library of this site explains how it works. The placement of the woofers is largely the result of work by Roy Allison. AR9s single tweeter does not have dispersion quite eqal to earlier AR 12" models using 3/4" tweeter and isn't remotely close to LST's.

IMO AR speakers all had a common characteristic of a high end rolloff and this was acknowldged by Edgar Villchur which he justified by pointing out that time averaged spectral transfer functions of concert halls exhibit the same rolloff. IMO this is not reasonable and to make AR3 perform well in the LvR demos Roy Allison performed, he had to boost the Dyna PAS3x preamp's treble control. Experimentation with a restored pair of AR2axs has convinced me that the 3/4" AR tweeter is outstanding when properly equalized. A graphic equalizer is a very useful tool for reducing or eliminating speaker resonances and flattening frequency response. What is lacking for most audiophiles IMO is the skill to use one effectively. Even for an experienced listener, it takes a great deal of patience. Use of white or pink noise and a calibrated microphone did not yield satisfactory results for me, they have to be adjusted by an experienced ear.

Room resonances which can be enhanced by speaker placement is another reason to use an equalizer. This powerful tool when correctly used can add substantially to the enjoyment of recorded music by more accurately reproducing the tone of acoustic instruments and voices. I have yet to see a single professional installation not intended for consumer (audiophile) use that didn't have at least one of them.

[DON]

If you want it all, buy an AR-9.

:D

[genek]

IMO AR speakers all had a common characteristic of a high end rolloff and this was acknowldged by Edgar Villchur which he justified by pointing out that time averaged spectral transfer functions of concert halls exhibit the same rolloff. IMO this is not reasonable and to make AR3 perform well in the LvR demos Roy Allison performed, he had to boost the Dyna PAS3x preamp's treble control.

I think it was a reasonable approach if the goal was to get a recording to play in an average living room with a rolloff similar to that of a concert hall. It was certainly not suited to playing a recording IN a concert hall, which was what the LvR demos mostly were. Roy Allison's later approach to his own speakers was to have "flat" and "concert slope" settings, and was probably better for the needs of owners who might not have been interested in concert hall response.

For those interested in brighter sound and better imaging today, I would think an auxiliary tweeter would be the best way to get it without the risk of overloading 40+ year old drivers or hacking up the resale value of a collectible.

[soundminded]

I think it was a reasonable approach if the goal was to get a recording to play in an average living room with a rolloff similar to that of a concert hall. It was certainly not suited to playing a recording IN a concert hall, which was what the LvR demos mostly were. Roy Allison's later approach to his own speakers was to have "flat" and "concert slope" settings, and was probably better for the needs of owners who might not have been interested in concert hall response.

For those interested in brighter sound and better imaging today, I would think an auxiliary tweeter would be the best way to get it without the risk of overloading 40+ year old drivers or hacking up the resale value of a collectible.

I doubt we will ever agree on this point. Rolling off the high frequencies does not recreate any aspect of the sound of musical instruments as heard live in a concert hall. The rolloff of high frequecies at a performace venue is a dynamic event which cannot be approximated by a steady state filter. The rolloff occurs because as sound decays in large venue, high frequencies are absorbed faster than middle and low frequencies. This is reflected in their shorter RTs. By rolling off the high end in a sound reproduction system, the initial attack of all instruments but especially percussive instruments including pianos gives their timbre a lack of characteristic attack which defines them. This is why the sound of AR speakers sounds muffled, (not polite) and why the imbalance created by flat bass can make them sound bottom heavy. What was required in the LvR demos was to have the FR of the entire chain back from the microphone that made the recording all the way through to the speaker flat. This is why the treble boost was required, to compensate for the loudspeaker's rolloff. The acoustics of the venue did approximately to the sound from the speakers what it did to the sound of the live instruments. Played flat with commercially made recordings, AR speakers always had an unacceptable treble rolloff except with the shrillest of recordings. KLH speakers had this to a much lesser degree owing to the tweeter response and the extra pains Kloss took to make them sound flatter.

AR2ax tweeters can play acceptably loud without breakup or signs of damage even today. When properly equalized they provide extended response that is clear, accurate, and extended without any signs of strain. They cannot play any music including classical music at ear shattering levels without sustaining damage. They were never designed for that and couldn't even when they were new.

[genek]

I doubt we will ever agree on this point.

Probably not, because I don't think my ARs sound muffled at all. OTOH, I do have an unusually "bright" listening space compared to what most people probably have. But if I ever get my hands on an anechoic recording and a concert hall, I'll definitely give the EQ boost a try.

[ar_pro]

By design, the tweeter developed for the AR-9 series didn't have the wide dispersion characteristic of earlier AR dome tweeters.

The model for this series of loudspeakers was different than that of previous TOTL AR systems, being much more "modern" in its goal of better-focused stereo imaging.

I've listened to the 3a (which I've always loved, and hold in very high regard) beside the AR-91, and the 91 is just a better loudspeaker - a lot of the improvement is due to that new tweeter.

[soundminded]

By design, the tweeter developed for the AR-9 series didn't have the wide dispersion characteristic of earlier AR dome tweeters.

The model for this series of loudspeakers was different than that of previous TOTL AR systems, being much more "modern" in its goal of better-focused stereo imaging.

I've listened to the 3a (which I've always loved, and hold in very high regard) beside the AR-91, and the 91 is just a better loudspeaker - a lot of the improvement is due to that new tweeter.

This is true but it was still unsatisfactory for me. The focused sound could not deliver timbral accuracy no matter what the crossover settings or equaliation curve. Therefore I added 11 top and side firing tweeters, cut the main tweeter back to minus 6db and re-equalized the system. When adjusted for individual recordings it can now usually accurately reproduce the timbre of any acoustic instrument as it would be heard in the same room it's in. This is true for the Steinway piano in that room and for the string instruments that are played there every day.

[Steve F]

I've listened to the 3a (which I've always loved, and hold in very high regard) beside the AR-91, and the 91 is just a better loudspeaker - a lot of the improvement is due to that new tweeter.

I agree with that statement in an absolute sense. By the time the 91 was introduced ('79-'80-ish), the speaker industry, including AR, knew a lot more about near-field, first arrival sound, driver interference patterns, tweeter power-handling issues, etc. There was a much broader base of accumulated design knowledge on which to draw in 1979 than there was in 1966. A lifetime more.

I've owned 3a's and 91's, and yes, the 91 is more 'modern'-sounding, with much or all of the 3a's bass and a better-balanced HF output. The 91 was a unique value-to-price speaker, offering much of the 9's character and tonal presentation for significantly less money in a much smaller size. The 92--which was a 10" version of the 91--was not as desirable a speaker, because of its less capable bass. Whereas the 5 was actually preferred over the 3a by some because of its better bass-to-mid-to-HF balance,no such parallel existed with the 91 and 92. The 92 was simply bass-shy compared to the 91, not better balanced.

Two other AR 12" 3-ways to consider:

The original AR-58s, which was essentially an AR-91 (same drivers) in a 27" cabinet (not 35"). Be careful not to look at the later 58B, Bx, Bxi, etc., as those used a 4" cone midrange and are an order of magnitude less capable.

The other is the AR-78LS, which used the mid-tw "dual dome" assembly from the AR-9 LS.

Those are the only 12" 3-way dome M-Tw models after the 91, but they're absolutely in the same performance category.

Steve F.

[frankmarsi]

AR 12" designs evolved starting with AR1 and culminated with Teledyne AR9, this over a period of approximately 25 to 30 years. All use variants of the same 12" woofer and the same acoustic suspension principle. AR9 however with 2 woofers in a double sized cabinet and crossed over at only 200 hz clearly outperforms all of the others in terms of deep bass response. AR LST improved mid and high frequency dispersion, not necessarily to everyone's liking. IMO it was the best speaker AR produced in this regard, clearly superior to every other model they made. It also could handle more power due to the use of 4 midranges and 4 tweeters. AR303 placed the drivers in a vertical line and they were improved. I think AR3a was designed by Roy Allison and AR303 by Ken Kantor who also designed NHT 3.3. Tonegen produced late versions of the AR 12" woofer and the woofer for the NHT 3.3 The only disadvantages I see to this driver is that its Vas is twice that of AR's design requiring a larger cabinet and it uses a polypropylene cone which makes it more suitable as a subwoofer than as a driver crossed over at 575 hz or 1 khz. (Tom Tyson pointed this out as I recall.)The same or similar woofer was available as the Tonegen 1259 and later evolved into the Madisound 1259 which they claim is not quite the same as the Tonegen model although the specs are suspiciously similar.

AR9 was TOTL adding an 8" lower midrange driver to the two woofers with switches to adjust the levels of the drivers. This was an acknowledgement of the difficulty of designing a 3 way system to cover all 10 audible ocatves. I think this design was produced by Tim Holl whose excellent paper in the library of this site explains how it works. The placement of the woofers is largely the result of work by Roy Allison. AR9s single tweeter does not have dispersion quite eqal to earlier AR 12" models using 3/4" tweeter and isn't remotely close to LST's.

IMO AR speakers all had a common characteristic of a high end rolloff and this was acknowldged by Edgar Villchur which he justified by pointing out that time averaged spectral transfer functions of concert halls exhibit the same rolloff. IMO this is not reasonable and to make AR3 perform well in the LvR demos Roy Allison performed, he had to boost the Dyna PAS3x preamp's treble control. Experimentation with a restored pair of AR2axs has convinced me that the 3/4" AR tweeter is outstanding when properly equalized. A graphic equalizer is a very useful tool for reducing or eliminating speaker resonances and flattening frequency response. What is lacking for most audiophiles IMO is the skill to use one effectively. Even for an experienced listener, it takes a great deal of patience. Use of white or pink noise and a calibrated microphone did not yield satisfactory results for me, they have to be adjusted by an experienced ear.

Room resonances which can be enhanced by speaker placement is another reason to use an equalizer. This powerful tool when correctly used can add substantially to the enjoyment of recorded music by more accurately reproducing the tone of acoustic instruments and voices. I have yet to see a single professional installation not intended for consumer (audiophile) use that didn't have at least one of them.

[/quote

7-15-11

Well, Alice, I’ve done it again.

Hello, my name is Frank and I use an equalizer!

My shadow and almost mute voice has been here at CSP before, I hide because I fear ridicule and I since 1967 since I first decent stereo to the time I stopped using my Dyna PAS-3X had used my treble controls all the way up on high, as music sounded so much more realistic that way. That’s to say; ‘up’ all the time and since then I have with held that information from my H-Fi peers regarding my listening habits. And I have since then, disagreed with‘purist’-listening habits. I too have succumb to using to some degree high frequency equalization with-out shame and certainly with-out regret.

Since I purchased a PL-4000 pre-amp in 1974, admittedly even then, I used my treble controls up all the way because as PL advertised back then, their treble controls only slightly contoured the high end with-out affecting the rest of the audio range, and because of that fact I was in audio heaven. I strongly felt back over 40 years ago as I do now that, AR speakers benefited from such alteration to their hi-frequency output by any means. There, I have admitted my true feelings about I use and perceive AR speakers.

Today I use my Carver C-4000’s treble controls up, all the way up, however even those controls are aided by a S.A.E. 1800 parametric equalizer which facilitates better adjustment in my acoustically challenged room.

Is it the AR speaker? Or is it me?

Perhaps it’s all the talk about concert halls and far-field versus near-field, heavy curtains and furnishings versus, ‘live-rooms’, dead rooms, hard wood floors vs. rugs? Damn the torpedoes, for me it’s in any field!

My high-frequency range listening must approximate the ‘real-thing’ for all and any realistic way of listening to music. Just as the drummers in the all the bands I played in, adjusted their cymbals to ring loud and clear, how the guitar players adjusted their sound, how I adjusted my bass guitar’s sound. Due to varying room acoustics, system dynamics, furnishings and room limitations, whatever, a speaker, like a violin or any musical instrument needs to be adjusted and tuned to the given situation. Once I had experienced the use of an equalizer, I wondered how I ever did so with-out one?

Soundminded, as typical, I tend to agreed with you once more, however in the land where I was born, equalizers were tabu and looked down upon, but I too have joined the ranks of using one nonetheless.

In 1983 I purchased my first equalizer from ratshack and I then knew all that I had limited myself to in terms of bending the rules. Back in the ‘70s, although equalizers were offered, most of them originated in Japan. Companies the likes of Pioneer, Technics, Sony, Kenwood, etc, etc. all offered them, not the same for most American manufacturers as it seemed ‘flat’ was the buzz word and was a belief by which to live by. Even though SoundCraftsman, Dynaco, SAE, etc. and a handful of other American manufacturers had offered equalizers, it seemed to me that the ‘far east’s’ sound was dictating the use of an equalizer to enhance sound reproduction to another level of possible realism, which to my snobbish, nationalistic and AR loving and youngish mind didn’t seem to be ‘realistic’ sounding as back then my belief was that equalizers were only compensating for inferior sound, and seemingly un-like what my AR’s afforded me. I’ll tell you why, it was because the golden days of Hi-Fi, especially the way “AR” wrote the book ,the way to go was solely their way and that typically meant muted highs and for lack of a better word; restrained high frequency response. Why do you think there’s so much talk on the site about HF drivers and adjusting X-overs and the like, it not just because our vintage HF drivers are dead, it’s also looking for alternatives. Let’s not even discuss JBL vs. AR, as I have never stopped that like of discussion since the late sixties with fellow Hi-Fi owners of various named equipment.

IN fact, back in 1974 I posed my AR-3a’s against a friends JBL L-100’s in the same room right next to one another. My friends comments included a new term to me, as I believe he originated it, he said: “Frank, your AR’s sounded like they had a woolen blanket over them” compared to his JBLs. I was offended, humiliated and hurt The following year I bought the Micro-Statics.

Being a loyal and dedicated AR lover all these years has sort of kept me in a certain zone, even though my better judgment and experience of playing in live bands and attending concerts had proven differently to me.

If I wasn’t saved back in early 1975 when I first bought my ‘Micro-Statics’, I don’t know how I would’ve survived. Back then, I had given up on replacing the AR HF tweeter as a preliminary reason and AR’s tweeters were great to listen to when they worked, but even then it always seemed deficient and too subdued.

I won’t go toe to toe with anyone’s taste here, but I will say, much as “soundminded” feels, is that golden-era vintage AR’s can benefit from using an ‘equalizer’ period!.

I can say that cause I ‘played-the-roll’ for a couple of years as a ‘purist’ AR listener until I caved into my feelings since then to the present about how I feel music should sound. To my ears listening with all tone controls at the ‘flat’ setting and such is ludicrous. And I certainly don’t believe in using a pre-amp that doesn’t have any tone controls at all but I’m sure some will disagree and different vintage speakers may require different settings.

FM