AR-6: any good?

[davidro]

G'day I'm watching an ebay item 260869944233.

Is AR-6 comparable to my AR-3a?

Does this item look like it has original drivers?

Is restoration any more difficult than the one for AR-3a?

They're 8 ohm speakers so I guess I can easily run them with my NAD 3120.

Any advices?

Thanks in advance. Cheers.

[mike tarelli]

G'day I'm watching an ebay item 260869944233.

Is AR-6 comparable to my AR-3a?

Does this item look like it has original drivers?

Is restoration any more difficult than the one for AR-3a?

They're 8 ohm speakers so I guess I can easily run them with my NAD 3120.

Any advices?

Thanks in advance. Cheers.

Hello,

I have both the 3a and the 6. The 3a has a little more detail and deeper bass. However listeners always comment how deep the bass response is on the 6.

The drivers look original, I assume the woofer has been re-foamed but the dimple effect on the paper is right.

I would guess restoration would be much simpler as there is just one cap on the crossover IF I understand correctly.

They are a much kinder load for the amp and would surely work with your NAD

They are GREAT speakers and often overlooked I think. Go for them and good luck!

Mike.

[Steve F]

The AR-6 was a remarkably good speaker, but it suffered from a sales/marketing standpoint of occupying a somewhat tenuous position in AR's lineup. Much like the AR-5 being caught between the 2ax and 3a at the higher end of the line, so was the AR-6 caught between the 4x (later 7) and 2ax at the lower end of the line. The 6 never achieved the sales popularity of the 4x, 7, or 2ax.

But this isn't to say that the 6 was anything less than one heckuva speaker. In fact, the critical acclaim showered on the 6 was nothing less than amazing. High Fidelity said, "…the AR-6 responds almost like an amplifier…a really terrific performer. " Julian Hirsch said in Stereo Review that the AR-6 sounded like the 5 to an "amazing degree" with almost "identical" bass response.

Not only was the 6's woofer an outstanding example of engineering, but as I mentioned in a previous post, the then-new 1 ½" cone tweeter (later changed in designation only to 1 ¼") was such an excellent unit that a close competitor of AR wanted to approach them about the possibility of manufacturing it for themselves under license. It's noteworthy that that tweeter, introduced with the AR-6 in 1971, continued in AR's line essentially unchanged (except for the addition of ferrofluid) until the late 1980's in the Bxi series.

I have said that I consider the 2ax to be the best performance/dollar model of the original Classic Series, but I wouldn't argue too much with someone who said it was the AR-6, especially at the original pricing of $72/81 ea. unfinished/finished.

Steve F.

[JKent]

G'day I'm watching an ebay item 260869944233.

Is AR-6 comparable to my AR-3a? Does this item look like it has original drivers? Is restoration any more difficult than the one for AR-3a? They're 8 ohm speakers so I guess I can easily run them with my NAD 3120. Any advices?

Thanks in advance. Cheers.

You're hooked, you poor bastard. Join the club!

Kent

[ssmith3046]

I own both the AR-6 and the AR-4x ( both restored ) and I prefer the 4x over the 6.I think the 4x has a better bass response. Actually don't use either one anymore but just can't part with them.

[genek]

I have 3a's and 6's. There's a definite "family resemblance" in the sound, but the 6 is definitely not "comparable" to the 3a. The smaller woofer doesn't go as low and the cone/dome combo tweeter doesn't go as high or have as wide a dispersion.

The 6 uses the same drivers as the AR-4xa, with a slightly different crossover and a different cabinet shape that is better suited to being placed in an actual bookcase, but at the cost of a small amount of bass compared to the 4 series.. The eBay listing referenced is the Euro version.

[Steve F]

The 6 uses the same drivers as the AR-4xa, with a slightly different crossover and a different cabinet shape that is better suited to being placed in an actual bookcase, but at the cost of a small amount of bass compared to the 4 series..

The original 4 series had a cloth surround woofer with an Fs of 30 Hz, I believe (by memory, haven't checked my old spec sheets). The 6 woofer was hailed upon introduction as a very advanced woofer and had an Fs of 25 Hz, the same as the 10" 2ax/5 woofers. AR's claimed bass response for the 6 was the exact same as the 2ax/5, as confirmed in a letter to me from Roy Allison (see letters to Steve F in the library).

The 4x/7 was said by AR-Roy to have a less-deep bass response, about 8-10 Hz higher (less extension) than the 6/2ax/5.

The 4xa may have used the "same" woofer as the 6 did at the time of the 4xa's intro (1974-ish, but the 6 was intro'd in '70-71), and the internal volumes of those two speakers was probably close enough that there was no appreciable difference in the low-end response.

But the original cloth-surround 4-4x did not go as low as the 6, and never could it be said that the 6 had less bass than any 4 series speaker.

Check Roy's letters to me. His words, not mine. Can't argue.

Steve F.

[genek]

I'll take your word on the specs. It's just that for some reason the 4's always seemed to me to have a bit more (or maybe just fuller) low end than the 6. At the time (1975) I noted that AR's product line brochure matched the 6 to a photo of the Royal Opera House in Copenhagen and the 4xa to a photo of Judy Collins, and assumed that AR had tuned the 4 series to appeal to customers who were listening to more contemporary music rather than any inherent quality of the designs. But I chose the 6, which should give an idea of which I thought sounded "better."

[Steve F]

I'll take your word on the specs. It's just that for some reason the 4's always seemed to me to have a bit more (or maybe just fuller) low end than the 6. At the time (1975) I noted that AR's product line brochure matched the 6 to a photo of the Royal Opera House in Copenhagen and the 4xa to a photo of Judy Collins, and assumed that AR had tuned the 4 series to appeal to customers who were listening to more contemporary music rather than any inherent quality of the designs. But I chose the 6, which should give an idea of which I thought sounded "better."

The Judy Collins picture dated from a late-60's catalog with the 4x, long before the 6 was even available. No "implication" as to the type of program material was intended, I'm sure, other than to show that the 4x sounded so good that even a well-known artist like Collins would "choose" to use them. AR used a lot of artist pictures/endorsements in their catalogs and ads for 3rd-party credibility, like Herbert Von Karajan, Miles Davis, Woody Herman, Don Ellis, and many others. Collins was just one of that group.

Steve F.

[genek]

In that case, I have no idea why the 4's always sounded to me as if they had a bass boost compared to the 6.

[davidro]

Thanks for tips guys!

You're hooked, you poor bastard. Join the club!

Kent

I know I'm worried

[michiganpat]

In that case, I have no idea why the 4's always sounded to me as if they had a bass boost compared to the 6.

could be the 4's have a higher system Q, which might have hump in the frequency response in the 90-150hz range, it'll make it feel more bassy, but doesn't necessarily go as low....