Question regarding imaging and AR speaker generations.

[Aadams]

I am not a newbie to audio systems and have listened to many box speakers over 4 decades and had never found one that I really liked though I own several pair. About a year ago while looking for some OLAs I came upon a nice pair of AR3as. It was a serendipitous moment. I have come to really like the sound of these speakers and am kicking myself for not starting with 3as in the 1970s when they were new and I was on my expense paid world tour with the US Navy.

I have been reading a lot the old threads in this forum to understand what the members with deep AR experience believe the differences are among and between the different generations of AR speakers. I am a listener that prefers a big sound-field. When I listen I am usually 15 to 20 feet from the speakers and frequently move about the house. I rarely sit to listen but when I do sit I am not closer than 15 feet to the speakers. I do not care to be stationary in a small sweet spot to be transported by speaker imaging.

It seems to me from reading this forum that the big sound-field ARs pretty much peaked with the LST and ended with the ADD units. All of the following generations including the 303 were about extending bass and image clarity in a narrow sound-field.

My question is: Is my conclusion correct? I don’t want to purchase a pair of AR 9s or 303s for example and get great bass but have to stay in small area in front of the speakers to have a stable stereo image.

This is a great forum.

[Steve F]

Your characterizations are not inaccurate, but perhaps a bit harsh with respect to the 9 (and the other Verticals, the 90, 91, and 92). Although their "Acoustic Blanket" design did indeed reduce the effect of baffle reflections to improve near-field imaging, they were still wide-dispersion speakers, although not as wide as the 3a/11, and certainly not as wide as the LST/LST-2.

Your listening habits would indicate that the 3a/11/LST would be more to your liking than the 9/90/91/92. If you like a stronger high-frequency response, the 11/10 Pi would be the way to go. With the same-diameter drive units as the 3a and the same crossover frequencies, their far-field power response will be quite similar to the 3a, albiet with a bit more HF component. The AR-78 LS that used the dual-dome and the original AR-58s with the 91's drivers sans the Blanket are also excellent speakers that you'd like.

The 303 will actually be quite good as well, since its drivers are also the same diameter as the 3a-11 and the crossovers are close in frequency. The 303 does nod towards the demands of near-field imaging with vertical, mirror-imaged drivers, but in the far field, where you listen, that won't come into play. The advantage of the 303 is that you're far more likely to find a set in good working order that doesn't need a lot of restoration, and whose components haven't suffered the irreverseable effects of 40 years of aging.

The Connoisseur and TSW series from the late '80's employed very large, narrow-dispersion midrange drivers for restricted "imaging," as did the Classic Series from 1992. All high quality, well-engineered, "honest" speakers, but not wide-dispersion as you seem to prefer.

I'd stay away from the B-Bx-Bxi stuff, the HI stuff and anything after the 1992 Classics.

Steve F.

[Aadams]

I have been looking for 303s since mid 2011. They seldom come up for sale. In that time I have seen 2 dubious ads on ebay and 2 craigslist listings that were just too far away. It seems to me that there are more AR9s and LSTs in circulation than 303s. But you have given me confidence that I won't be dissapointed if I do find a pair of 303s.

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question.

[sfbayarch]

I'd like to chime in with a recommendation for AR's Holographic Imaging Series. I believe there are 7 models from the small bookshelf AR-M1 all the way up to the floor standing AR-M6 (there is an M4.5 too - if you're wondering about my math). I have a pair of AR M1 speakers that are absolutely fantastic small bookshelf units, among the best speakers my ears have heard for their imaging properties and off-axis listening. For what it's worth, I actually preferred the M1 to the more acclaimed, and more expensive Spica TC-50 because they possessed a certain sparkle at the high end that gave me an added sense of presence and they did not sound rolled off at the upper frequencies as the TC-50 did.

The best part is they can be had for a song. So I would recommend starting there, trying them out and getting a taste for these very underrated speakers...

http://classicspeake...eries_brochure/

[Aadams]

I'd like to chime in with a recommendation for AR's Holographic Imaging Series. I believe there are 7 models from the small bookshelf AR-M1 all the way up to the floor standing AR-M6 (there is an M4.5 too - if you're wondering about my math). I have a pair of AR M1 speakers that are absolutely fantastic small bookshelf units, among the best speakers my ears have heard for their imaging properties and off-axis listening. For what it's worth, I actually preferred the M1 to the more acclaimed, and more expensive Spica TC-50 because they possessed a certain sparkle at the high end that gave me an added sense of presence and they did not sound rolled off at the upper frequencies as the TC-50 did.

The best part is they can be had for a song. So I would recommend starting there, trying them out and getting a taste for these very underrated speakers...

What do you do for bass?

[sfbayarch]

What do you do for bass?

I go into the living room and listen to my AR 2ax's

Actually, where I listen to my AR M1 speakers, I'm not left wanting for more bass (well, most of the time anyway). They aren't terrible in the bass department. What you get is pretty clean and tight. I briefly fiddled around pairing them with a cheap sub-woofer (from my home theater) and found it compromised and muddied up the thing which these speakers do best.

I've heard others recommend a good sub from the likes of HSU, Velodyne, etc...Some have also found a successful match with a pair of passive subs, but I cannot speak from first hand experience.

[Aadams]

I go into the living room and listen to my AR 2ax's

Actually, where I listen to my AR M1 speakers, I'm not left wanting for more bass (well, most of the time anyway). They aren't terrible in the bass department. I briefly fiddled around pairing them with a cheap sub-woofer (from my home theater) and found it compromised the clean and tight presentation (the thing which these speakers do best) with too much muddy boom for my liking. I've heard others recommend a good sub from the likes of HSU, Velodyne, etc...Some have also found a successful match with a pair of passive subs, but I cannot speak from first hand experience.

Good Answer. Subwoofers seem to be least troublesome in HT systems.

[Gerry S]

I believe your aasumptions are correct.The AR3a did not and could not "image" because it was meant to be used the way you've been using it; in the "far field". At the time, most maunufactures didn't pay attention to imaging. As the speaker and recording industry advanced over several decades, imaging became more attainable for the masses, but you still had to position the speaker/listener locations carefully to achieve it.

I've owned dozens of speakers over a 40 year span. I've also designed a few of my own as a "professional" for a major Boston company.

I happen to like "imaging" and sitting in the "sweet spot ". Imaging gives a sense of "focus" similar to what's experienced by the recording enginners finalizing the mix at the recording studio befote it gets released.

With "home theater", that critical "center channel " speaker provides that "focus" without going to great extremes to finding that "sweet spot". Since I listen to music and DVD's , I prefer a 2-channel setup capable of doing justice to both; less cubersom, costly and complicated than trying to integrate 5 or more speakers into a "living room".

The bottom line from my perspective: A "vintage" speaker like the AR3a CANNOT "image" no matter where you place them, or where you sit.

On the other hand , a "modern" speaker system with a very smooth response AND capaple of "imaging" won't sound any WORSE than the venerated AR3a . Even if you don't go to the lenghths required to find that "sweet spot", today's "modern speakers" reflect more accurately what's acoustically possible when playing back "modern recordings" mixed in "modern recording studios".

And, "tone controls" can "mimi" the AR3a "sound" while providing greater SPL with less distiorn and bass extension .

[Aadams]

Gerry S.

Thank you for responding and I think you could be correct. Most recorded performances for the past few decades have been assembled in recording studios from components that are collected from fabricators or suppliers that can deliver the goods within the time and tolerance specifications called for by the designer of the recording; Much like an automobile is built. I have no problem with this. If I wanted to compare the work of different recording engineers or to hear what he or she heard when the final performance was assembled prior to shipment then I should be willing to sit still and learn at their feet by listening through speakers which best present their product. Or I could just use headphones.

I prefer merely to hear the music presented with a pleasing balance and artistry and not have my playback equipment intrude to an annoying degree. I want to hear clearly the words that are being sung and sense the musical feeling transmitted by the performer. Or, if it is a large scale performance I like a sound that is not “dead”. I can’t control the quality of the product that is put on the market. If I bought music primarily on recording technical merit I could end up with a lot of once played great recordings sitting on the shelf. There is so much variation in recording technical quality judging from the finished product, it is obvious that the recording studios don’t care about me most of the time. So, for me, it is not necessary to hear what was heard exactly in the studio unless I am trying to analyze the work of the engineer. It just has to be good enough that I will listen to it repeatedly. Fortunately there is a lot of recorded music that meet my criteria.

I agree with you that an equalizer can be used to make speakers sound similar but in my attempts I could not get the equalizer to enlarge the sound field. There probably are speakers that will provide the near-field performance you desire and the far-field performance that I desire but they almost certainly involve a compromise like needing a subwoofer or costing some stupid amount of money (both of which leads to more compromise). I have been told so many times that the Holy Grail does exist. I am running out of time and don't expect to see it.

I also find myself more frequently watching movies in stereo. For a while I regarded 5.1 as the solution to all my speaker problems. I found that I could create a very pleasing sound-field if I would just stand or sit in some precisely balanced point among the speakers. There were (3) problems as I recall: (1) I had to stay in place for it to sound right (2) when I changed the recording the spot moved and (3) The sub-woofer balance seemed to change with the music. My current thinking is X.1 systems are good for effects and music tracks when the engineers have done a good job but for musical recordings or average DVD soundtracks, stereo or 3 channel is better.

I do have a stereo system connected with non-box speakers that produce a better than decent near field image as well as a large far field image. My former HT subwoofer is now doing duty there so those speakers can sound convincing next to the AR3as.

Approximately in the words of Carlspeak. "It's about the music."

Aadams

[michiganpat]

my Hologaphic Imaging M5's have very good bass with the 8" bandpass box in the tower....very clean, crisp sounding speakers,. but more "forward" than the classic era AR's

[allen_osuno]

Here is a quote from a friend of mine named "Rick". He is a classical musician and hi fi buff of many decades. Here is what he said:

"I can't understand how anyone who has heard the Teledyne Acoustic Research AR9 wouldn't think that they had the

best imaging, both near field and far field, of any speaker I ever heard ( I have not heard the post AR9 speakers from 9ls onwards) but

I find it hard to see how the old AR9, in restored condition, isn't easily one of the best loudspeakers ever made. Its imaging,

in my view is perfect, no matter where one sits in the room, even directly in front of one channel when the other speaker (channel) is

way across the room. As far as matching the original acoustic timber of live instruments, I have never heard a speaker

reproduce complex passages of classical music with different sound shadings of different instruments in different concert halls..I have

never heard a speaker than can handle such complex wave forms with such perfect sound reproduction even at high

volume with choirs and loud full symphonic passages included, where every non-AR speaker I have ever heard just simply became

either 'shrieky', 'fuzzy' or in anywise would send me heading for the volume control or the off button after even an hour of listening.

Not so with the AR9 (original, not the 9ls etc). Loud,clean,as near perfect sound reproduction as I have ever heard. I even cancelled plans to buy a pair of $5000 headphones that I was planning to buy because my former speakers (Polk) just had me thinking

that high fidelity through a loudspeaker in a living room was a lost cause. Then I heard the AR9. A 180 degree about face

in my thinking. The AR9 beat in detail and clarity ANY even high end electrostatic headphone I had ever heard.

So, say what you want. I am convinced the AR9 may be the most accurate loudspeaker, in terms of dispersion, imaging,exactness of reproduction that has ever been made, possibly for any price. May sound extravagant, but as a classical musician and having 40 years of experience with all kinds of speakers and hi fi equipment, I am convinced the AR9 is the finest loudspeaker I have ever heard. Bar none." (end quote).

I would agree with Rick. Hard to match, let alone beat, the Teledyne AR9 when fully restored (including properly restored crossovers).

[ar_pro]

The AR-9 is a very "modern" speaker, in that it needs a large-ish room to sound its best,

Further, a vaulted, or "cathedral-type" ceiling improves virtually every aspect of its performance - the 9 would be quite at home in a modern McMansion.

Additionally, it is eminently suited to listening from a distance - not just within the typical sweet-spot.

I've experienced the AR-3a in many different listening environments, and it was a wonderful loudspeaker for the (commonly) more modest-sized living rooms of its era, where it did a remarkable job providing a wide stereo image.

It's amusing to see restored 3a's pulled away from the back wall, and perched atop stands like some sort of near-field British monitor-type system - talk about a square peg in a round hole!

[richard]

I am not a newbie to audio systems and have listened to many box speakers over 4 decades and had never found one that I really liked though I own several pair. About a year ago while looking for some OLAs I came upon a nice pair of AR3as. It was a serendipitous moment. I have come to really like the sound of these speakers and am kicking myself for not starting with 3as in the 1970s when they were new and I was on my expense paid world tour with the US Navy.

I have been reading a lot the old threads in this forum to understand what the members with deep AR experience believe the differences are among and between the different generations of AR speakers. I am a listener that prefers a big sound-field. When I listen I am usually 15 to 20 feet from the speakers and frequently move about the house. I rarely sit to listen but when I do sit I am not closer than 15 feet to the speakers. I do not care to be stationary in a small sweet spot to be transported by speaker imaging.

It seems to me from reading this forum that the big sound-field ARs pretty much peaked with the LST and ended with the ADD units. All of the following generations including the 303 were about extending bass and image clarity in a narrow sound-field.

My question is: Is my conclusion correct? I don’t want to purchase a pair of AR 9s or 303s for example and get great bass but have to stay in small area in front of the speakers to have a stable stereo image.

This is a great forum.

The AR 3a was a favorite of mine and imaged well. I am a fan of SACD surround, and recently purchased a pair of AR 9s. What amazed me was how the 9 s image with stereo. My listening room is about 19 feet wide by 27 feet long with 16 foot celing. I love chamber music, and the stereo image is about the same in front of the speakers as well as over 20 feet away. Part of this may be due to the height of these speakers, about ear level in a standing position. Even so, when in a seating position over 20 feet away, the image does not change much.

Yes, I bought these speakers with the improvement in dynamic range in mind, but the stereo image in all parts of the room was a real surprise.

[Gerry S]

The AR-9 is a very "modern" speaker, in that it needs a large-ish room to sound its best,

Further, a vaulted, or "cathedral-type" ceiling improves virtually every aspect of its performance - the 9 would be quite at home in a modern McMansion.

Additionally, it is eminently suited to listening from a distance - not just within the typical sweet-spot.

I've experienced the AR-3a in many different listening environments, and it was a wonderful loudspeaker for the (commonly) more modest-sized living rooms of its era, where it did a remarkable job providing a wide stereo image.

It's amusing to see restored 3a's pulled away from the back wall, and perched atop stands like some sort of near-field British monitor-type system - talk about a square peg in a round hole!

Totally agree. My AR3a and AR 10pi "bookshelves" were ALWAYS on stands, AND away from walls too.! Your "square peg/ round hole" desription is apropriate. For MY listening preference, the AR 9 would have hit the "bullseye". But it was costly and I'd have much diifficulty moving them around for best sound in a given room.

That's why I wanted a "mirror -imaged" version of the AR 10 pi.badly; right size to experiment with room placement !

Did AR even make a prototype "mirror -imaged" 10 pi to determine if one could approximate the 9 's imaging capabilities in the "near-field"?

[ar_pro]

The AR-91 sounds pretty good up close & elevated from the floor - it's taller than the 10π, but I don't think it's as wide.

[Gerry S]

The AR-91 sounds pretty good up close & elevated from the floor - it's taller than the 10π, but I don't think it's as wide.

Thanks !!! May obtain a pair. But first, I have to find "good homes" for the approximately one dozen pair of BA products cluttering my "iving space". It's SO hard to let go of stuff I worked on .

[HarryM]

I also have about a dozen other working pairs that I analize sound with and compare to my 91's but for actual listening to music it is always the 91's.I maybe convinced to part with all the others but I can't see parting with the 91's.I hope to add 3's and 9's someday as part of my keeper collection.That being said,I have yet to part with any speakers.LOL

[Gerry S]

I also have about a dozen other working pairs that I analize sound with and compare to my 91's but for actual listening to music it is always the 91's.I maybe convinced to part with all the others but I can't see parting with the 91's.I hope to add 3's and 9's someday as part of my keeper collection.That being said,I have yet to part with any speakers.LOL

Betcha you're not married... LOL.

[HarryM]

Betcha you're not married... LOL.

Good guess.LOL.

[Gerry S]

I also have about a dozen other working pairs that I analize sound with and compare to my 91's but for actual listening to music it is always the 91's.I maybe convinced to part with all the others but I can't see parting with the 91's.I hope to add 3's and 9's someday as part of my keeper collection.That being said,I have yet to part with any speakers.LOL

Here's my problem. A lot (bulk?) of my "BA colletion" has" foam rot". I worked there from 1988 to 2000 on the "bread and butter stuff" .. nothing "upscale" like the Lynnfield Series. So, I have the following (multiple pairs of some):

BA 404 center channel , BA 525 channel , HD 5, HD7, HD 9 (the one in the "shoot-out"), Sub-Sat 6 and Sub-Sat 7 complete systems (including the bandpass subwoofer box drivers). All employ "foam surrounds" that have either completly distintgrated or on the verge of doing so. I should find someplace that carries ALL the surrounds I need at a "bulk discount".

My eyes and manual dexterity ain't what it used to be, so working "close" is gonna be hard or me. I'll probably try to pay someone in the local area if their fee is reasonable. THEN, I can GIVE THEM AWAY to people /friends who "appreciate" good sound but could never afford it.

My "glory days" are over.. don't have that "passion" anymore. But I can pass that passion to others. Unlike many here, I believe "hi-fi" as we "oldtimers" know it WILL eventually make a "comeback" when the economy improves. It will never be like the "good old days" but feel this irrelevant because the bulk of the stuff sounded pretty dreadful even when hi-fi was at it's "peak".

I want "good" hi-fi for the masses. Hope I live long enough to see it happen.

[Carlspeak]

Here's my problem. A lot (bulk?) of my "BA colletion" has" foam rot". I worked there from 1988 to 2000 on the "bread and butter stuff" .. nothing "upscale" like the Lynnfield Series. So, I have the following (multiple pairs of some): BA 404 center channel , BA 525 channel , HD 5, HD7, HD 9 (the one in the "shoot-out"), Sub-Sat 6 and Sub-Sat 7 complete systems (including the bandpass subwoofer box drivers). All employ "foam surrounds" that have either completly distintgrated or on the verge of doing so. I should find someplace that carries ALL the surrounds I need at a "bulk discount". My eyes and manual dexterity ain't what it used to be, so working "close" is gonna be hard or me. I'll probably try to pay someone in the local area if their fee is reasonable. THEN, I can GIVE THEM AWAY to people /friends who "appreciate" good sound but could never afford it. My "glory days" are over.. don't have that "passion" anymore. But I can pass that passion to others. Unlike many here, I believe "hi-fi" as we "oldtimers" know it WILL eventually make a "comeback" when the economy improves. It will never be like the "good old days" but feel this irrelevant because the bulk of the stuff sounded pretty dreadful even when hi-fi was at it's "peak". I want "good" hi-fi for the masses. Hope I live long enough to see it happen.

PM me for a quote. I'm about 15 mins from Spfld, MA.

[HarryM]

Gerry,if you have not made other arrangments for refoaming by January let me know.I wouldn't mind heading down to work on speakers for a week and hear about the old days from an old timer.LOL.

I am young but only compared to some.I'm 44 and caught the tailend of disco but quickly moved on to the harder rock.I consider myself to be apart of the generation that will bring back the stereo sound or "hifi" sound that I grew up with.I think that sound is well on it's way back.

I lucked out when I found my AR-91's that someone had put out for garbage.It's because I took the 91's home,that brought me to this forum and it's wealth of knowledge and appreciation for sound and speakers.It's guys like you that brought me back to listen to music and wanting to hear music the way it is ment to sound and I thank you for that, that and the 28 pairs,I think,of speakers and a bunch of recievers and amps and turntables and as of thursday a pair of AR-3a's.They need some work yet but thats part of the fun for me.Less then a year ago I didn't have one pair of working speakers and no stereo system,I had given the last system away a few years ago because I was sick of listening to music that didn't sound good.I think alot more people around my age are realizing that music on modern systems just doesn't sound as good as the old fashioned two speaker stereo system.It will be back sooner rather then later I think.

Harry.

[xpat]

Hello,

I have original pairs of AR9s and AR5 speakers. I belive they both are excellent when it comes to imaging. I didn't always feel that way. To make a long story short, over the years I have upgraded my electronics, interconnects and speaker wires. Nothing exotic, but better than what I previously used. The better equipment made a huge difference in the imaging of both speakers. I'll probably keep these speakers until they carry me feet first out of my music room.

[Gerry S]

Hello,

I have original pairs of AR9s and AR5 speakers. I belive they both are excellent when it comes to imaging. I didn't always feel that way. To make a long story short, over the years I have upgraded my electronics, interconnects and speaker wires. Nothing exotic, but better than what I previously used. The better equipment made a huge difference in the imaging of both speakers. I'll probably keep these speakers until they carry me feet first out of my music room.

Untill several weeks ago, I used a vintage Pioneer SX-525 reciever somone threw out in the dumpster. Suprised that it worked well except for intermittant switches, which I cleaned. Been using it for several years because it was "good enough" despite having modern NAD & other stuff lying around...too lazy to unhook the vintage Pioneer.

Today, I'm using a brand new "modern" Pioneer that DOES improve the sound dramatically. Greatly improved channel seperation and much lower distortion is what I hear. I'm confident enough this improvement is "real" and NOT due to the "newer is better" syndrome. Confident enough I'm willing to bet money I can consistently identify "new" vs "old" under level-matched blind listening test using regular cd source material played back @ levels where the "old" Pioneer isn't over-driven.

So, I surprisingly/ begrudgingly agree that "modern electronics" CAN improve sound quality significantly. Either that or the "vintage" Pioneer is badly "out of spec". Still skeptical about high-end "interconnects" though.

[Aadams]

I want to bring this thread full circle and thank all of you who tried to convey to me a feel for the differences in sound among all the AR generations since the AR3a. I started this thread when I wanted to acquire a set of LSTs or 303s. I was not successful because I could not satisfy my criteria for price, condition and driving distance whenever either model came up for sale. Last week a set of beautiful, well maintained AR9s were put up for sale within 10 miles of my house. The short version is they are now installed next to my 3as. I no longer want 303s and though LSTs would be nice I am not going to chase them.

Steve F. Your description of the differences between the 9 and the 3a are spot on, in my opinion.

Soundminded. You are correct. 60 solid watts in a 4000 CF room works for me as well.

Finally, even next to a 9, the 3a is no slouch. When playing massed human voices and instrument ensembles the difference between the two speakers can be imperceptible, at least in my set up.

Thanks