Cost of the AR 3a,s

[ironlake]

Why did the 3a,s cost so much more than the 2ax,s?. Sure a little more wood in the cabinet but only 3 speakers vs 3 speakers, and the 12 inch woofer certainly did not cost that much to build than the 10 inch and the mid range and tweeter should have cost about the same to mfg.

[Carlspeak]

I think you answered your question in a post to another thread regarding how much better the 3a's sounded on organ music.

Smart merchandisers price to perceived value, not cost. Just look at the iPad vs other tablets. Roughly the same size and physical makup. The cost to manufacture can't be that much different as the selling price is.

However, the iPad has many more features (i.e. apps) so they charge a higher price.

That's my take on it. The historians will probably have a different view of the subject.

[Steve F]

Carl's take is certainly correct, but perhaps not the entire story.

The 3a midrange had a magnet structure almost equal to that of the woofer and it was several times as massive as the 2ax's midrange. The 3a's midrange also had a relatively high "reject" rate during manufacture because of AR's incredibly high QC standards. It was a tough driver to build. The cost of rejected units had to be factored into the selling price of the final product.

As Carl says, any product to some degree is priced at what the manufacturer feels it can command in the competitive marketplace. But the 3a's woofer and midrange were far more costly than the woofer and midrange of the 2ax. I think a rough doubling of list price from 4x to 2ax to 3a ($63 to $128 to $250 ea.) served AR very well at that time and was just about spot-on for their market.

Steve F.

[genek]

More expensive drivers, more complex crossovers requiring additional time and labor to assemble, lowee manufacturing volume, take your pick. Probably all of the above to some extent or another.