AR 9 vs 9Ls

[ironlake]

How did the two of these compare in sound and for an organ buff which one would go lower???

[ar_pro]

The 9 has better LF performance, and in my opinion, better overall performance, as well.

[oldarnut]

The LF performance of both systems should be comparable. The 9 and 9LS both use the AR3 12" woofer. The 9LS uses a second 10" AR2 woofer.

Even though I've heard the AR9 and agree it is impressive, is it really the "best" AR speaker system? My AR9LS's sounded terrible until I changed the crossover components to the 9LSi. Unmodified, they sound very nasal due to a peak in the midrange. After the update, they are a delight to listen to, similar to my AR3a's.

I realize many of you consider the AR9 the holy grail of AR speakers. For some reason, the midrange/high driver assy. for the AR9LSi and smaller versions get very few comments--about dispersion, transparency, whether the frequency response is smooth, etc. The AR9, however gets kudos as being the "best" in every area.

It seems odd that the tweeter in the AR3a is considered infallable when comparing it to any modern replacement tweeter, especially its dispersion pattern, yet even with all the praise of the AR9 system, the tweeter performance gets very little comment.

[ar_pro]

There's nothing wrong with the 9LSI, which is a fine speaker system - it's just not up to the performance of the AR-9.

I can't recall any of the AR-9 owners that I knew at the time who preferred the 9LSI to its predecessor - this represented the first time in the history of the company that "the best system we can build" wasn't as well-regarded as AR's earlier top-of-the-line model. The development of AR-LST notwithstanding, this had never happened before, as each successive TOTL system bested AR's previous standard-bearer.

Perhaps the circumstance goes back to the development and initial appearance of the LSI - maybe someone in the know could give some details about the LSI series, and how this situation came to be.

I think the issue with the 3a tweeter is not in regard to its "infallibility", but more about how there is no modern replacement which would provide performance identical to that of the original driver.

That said, the AR-9's tweeter isn't the same as the one used in the 3a.

[soundminded]

The LF performance of both systems should be comparable. The 9 and 9LS both use the AR3 12" woofer. The 9LS uses a second 10" AR2 woofer.

Even though I've heard the AR9 and agree it is impressive, is it really the "best" AR speaker system? My AR9LS's sounded terrible until I changed the crossover components to the 9LSi. Unmodified, they sound very nasal due to a peak in the midrange. After the update, they are a delight to listen to, similar to my AR3a's.

I realize many of you consider the AR9 the holy grail of AR speakers. For some reason, the midrange/high driver assy. for the AR9LSi and smaller versions get very few comments--about dispersion, transparency, whether the frequency response is smooth, etc. The AR9, however gets kudos as being the "best" in every area.

It seems odd that the tweeter in the AR3a is considered infallable when comparing it to any modern replacement tweeter, especially its dispersion pattern, yet even with all the praise of the AR9 system, the tweeter performance gets very little comment.

IMO AR9 is the best low frequency reproducer AR manufactured, better than either LSI version. However, AR9's tweeter while able to handle more power than AR3a's and play louder at high frequencies did not equal AR3a's dispersion. The best high frequency reproducer AR manufactured was LST. It is unfortunate that there wasn't a single model that was overall best in every respect. AR9's poorer high frequency dispersion was the result of pandering to market trends where imaging became paramount and tonal accuracy took a back seat. IMO in this regard it was a real step backwards, a regression to a poorer conceptual model and not at all true to Villchur's and Allison's basic design goals. Those goals which are closer to my own mathematical models are now completely abandoned by the audio industry. They were superior even if Villchur and Allison didn't know precisely why. My "enhancements" to AR9 results in high frequency performance closer to LST's.

[Steve F]

High Fidelity magazine's test report on the 9 LS (1982, I think) does not show a midrange peak nor do they mention any 'nasal coloration' in their text. Actually, they liked the 9 LS more than the 9, saying, "Completely gone is the slight heaviness that marred the sound of the original 9."

That said, I don't find my 9's "heavy" at all. They sound like AR-7's in the bass, until/unless something deeper is actually there on the recording. Sometimes, I'm amazed at their "lack" of bass (which, of course, just proves how accurate they are).

Another thought on the 9 LS/LSi--I would think that the foam in the "Bass Contour Chamber" and the foam surround on that internally-mounted 10" woofer would be a real bear to try to replace/restore, quite apart from the dual-dome mid/tweet unit, which itself is almost impossible to find.

So my preference is for the original 9, because I think it's easier to maintain very close to its original specs, and I think any slight acoustic improvement in the LS or LSi variants is more theoretical than tangible, certainly in light of today's realities.

The only real downside I find to the 9 is its incredibly ugly appearance, what with those horrible side woofer grilles, classless plastic logos, whimpy binding posts, strange cabinet slope, and the amazingly mediocre quality of its veneer. My 9's are in a dedicated "music room," because they'd never be allowed to disgrace the appearance of a publicly-seen room in our house. And that's not my wife talking--it's me.

Steve F.