AR2ax woofers with flat cone edge??!!

[xmas111]

And John may be correct that no one is interested in his LST thread - - - it is now approaching only 2700 views.

ra.ra....you always catch my oops moments ....

[de fougieres]

for BEN 76

I have AR2ax loud speakers ( ot the year 1976 ) in a bad state at present

the woofers have flat cone edge ,as you can see on my pictures

mine have a big problem of coil ,I discover this problem after having beginning to refoam them unluckily !! so I can't see another solution except to change them now

if you want any further details on them ,don't hesitate and I will send you more pictures

[ben76]

De Fougieres, indeed yours have a flat edge too. However, they do not look exactly like mine. Mine are more green in color and more textured (i.e., with little bumps). In any case, the consensus among the experts on this forum is that cones with flat edges are not original.

Tough luck with the blown up voice coil.

I see that the back of your cone has some white writing on it. What does it say?

I have recently noticed that AR cones from the Teledyne period (like the ar90 series) look similar in terms of rigidity and texture to the flat edged cones I have.

This raises the following question to the experts:

Can it be that somewhere in the 1980's AR provided these cones in a re-cone kit for the AR2ax? For that matter, did AR ever offer re-cone kits to speaker repair shops, or did they only offer to fix the drivers themselves, and the repair shops had to use an after-market source for new cones?

Ben

[ben76]

Just noticed these ar8 woofers on the bay, and they also look like they have a flat edge. Not 100% sure though.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-Vintage-AR-8-10-Woofer-Speakers-Need-Foaming-Work-/251052523706?pt=Vintage_Electronics_R2&hash=item3a73e580ba

The funny thing is that the drivers have a label with the name of the speaker. I did not know AR did that.

Am I correct that even though they also employ 10" woofers, the ar8 did not have the same woofers as the ar2ax?

I have heard somewhere that the ar8 was designed to be louder (more west-coast?), which suggests a possible use of a different driver.

Can somebody more knowledgeable please verify/correct this.

Ben

[ra.ra]

Those AR-8 woofers do seem to have very many similarities with the later 2ax woofs. My first reaction, when just visually comparing the ebay pics with my own 2ax woofers, was that the basket on the 8 woof seemed to have a deeper dimension than my 2ax, but I am now inclined to think maybe this was optical deception. I did notice that in this AK thread, the AR-2ax woof has part number 200004-2, with a '76 date.

http://www.audiokarm...ead.php?t=85726

In the AR library, there is a drawing no. 100008, titled "AR-8 System Assembly", which lists the 10" woofer assembly as part number 200004-1. It looks like this drawing was originated in 1973 when the AR-8 debuted, and then stamped as MASTER FILE in September 1975 after many subsequent revisions (see portion attached).

It is well documented that these early AR speaker models had many permutations, and it seems that the stamps and stickers for parts designations on the backsides of drivers is no different. The label on the ebay woof shows a 1974 date, but perhaps the label type is for a replacement woofer - - it curiously makes no mention of the 200004 part number.

As for the flat edge, it's hard to tell from the pic, and this other portion of the AR drawing is also inconclusive.

[ra.ra]

Also wanted to add this update - - - perhaps these woofer labels are found on Euro versions of AR speakers? If you look at auction link below, you'll see Euro 2ax's with 1974 woofer number 3903-2. The AR-8 woofer you mentioned is listed as number 3903-1.

http://www.ebay.com/...ht_13733wt_1214

[Steve F]

In the original 1974 AR-8 literature that I have, AR states, "The AR-8 uses a 10" woofer that is more efficient than some of our other designs....." implying--quite clearly--that this was a different woofer than the 2ax/5/LST-2 woofers. It's interesting that their lit states that the FAR for the 8 and the 2ax/5/LST-2 woofers is the same at 26 Hz, but the system resonance for the 8 is given as 52 Hz, while it's listed as 56 Hz for the others. That makes no sense given that all four systems have the identical internal volume (1.35 cu.ft.) and the 8 is supposedly more efficient. The Iron Law (which applies with, well, an iron fist to sealed systems) states that you can't have both deeper extension and higher efficiency with the same-sized enclosure.

Admittedly, as enthusiastic hobbyists we tend to parse every word of the old lit, the old ads, and try to divine hidden meaning in everything we uncover. But, more often than not, corporate literature in any industry is written by mid-level marketing people and the copy is given a very quick once-over by the "higher ups." By 1974, the Villchur/Allison days of extreme care in written materials were long past. No doubt, that explains the system resonance-FAR inconsistency.

I think it's safe to say that the AR-8 was introduced with a different woofer variant than the 2ax/5/LST-2, but they may have morphed together later on. Certainly, at this point, a replacement AR 10" woofer will be generic for all models.

Steve F.

[genek]

The 1979 AR parts list shows the same woofer for the 2ax, 8, 12 and 14 (the 1977 parts list doesn't show any replacement part for the 8 at all). If the 8 had its own woofer, it didn't stay in the line long enough to make it onto the service parts list.

Another possibility is that the 8 always used the same foam woofer that was being transitioned into the 2ax, and that the less efficient "other designs" being referred to in the cutsheet was the earlier cloth surround 10" woofer..

[Steve F]

"....the 8 always used the same foam woofer that was being transitioned into the 2ax, and that the less efficient "other designs" being referred to in the cutsheet was the earlier cloth surround 10" woofer."

Possible, but not likely. In the 1974 timeframe of the 8's intro, it was being directly compared by AR to its then-current 2ax and 5, both of which were losing the retail A-B battles to Advent, JBL, and EPI. I think it would be a stretch to infer that AR was referring to the discontinued cloth-surround 10" woofer. With the 8, AR was trying to show the market that they too could compete with a 'rock' speaker. That the 8 failed is not the point. That it was intended to do a certain thing is the point. Hence, the different woofer.

Being a late-73/early-74 intro, yes, agreed, the 8 was probably too short-lived to get its own service replacement woofer. The ADDs (10 Pi, 11, MST) came out in early '75, followed by the 16, 12, and 14 in '76.

Steve F.

[genek]

My impression of the 8 when it came out was that it was intended as a "budget" or "college student" alternative to the 2ax (that's based on sight and sound, not on advertising). With a two-way setup similar to the previously discontinued 2x and vinyl cabinet, the 8 seemed to be more of a price point exercise than a speaker whose sound was balanced for "rock music." It didn't seem to me that it sounded much different from the rest of the then-current AR line. But maybe that was why it didn't do well for its intended market.

[Steve F]

Your impression of the 8's market mission is at odds with AR's actual marketing strategy. The introductory ads for the 8 had the headline, "The first accurate speaker for rock music." The body copy of the ads (and the lit as well) went on to say that the 'increase' position of the tweeter control delivered the 'sharper, harder, more exaggerated high frequencies' demanded by rock music lovers.

That's a very definitive marketing position, not merely a vinyl-clad price point or a revised 2x.

The 8 is fascinating from an historical standpoint precisely because it departs so radically from AR's vaunted uncolored musical accuracy theme, which had been a constant up until this product.

The 8 didn't deliver on its 'rock music' promise--a look at the FR curves in High Fidelity's test report from 1974 show essentially the same FR curve as other AR speakers that used that 1 1/4" cone tweeter.

So the 8

-- Promised 'rock' tonal balance, but was instead AR dull and laid back

-- Looked lousy with its vinyl cabinet, when the same-sized 2ax and 5 were wood veneer

-- Cost more than the vinyl OLA--$119 ea to $102 (even more than the wood veneer OLA, $116 ea.)

-- Was readily mail-order discounted, so not as profitable for dealers to sell as Advent and EPI

Is it any wonder the AR-8 was a total failure? What an embarassing way for the 1954-1974 'Classic' era to come to a close.

Steve F.

[genek]

Your impression of the 8's market mission is at odds with AR's actual marketing strategy.

Yes. It would be very interesting to talk to the designers of the AR-8 to see if it was really intended to be what the marketing people advertised it as, or if it started out as the replacement for the AR-2x and got "repurposed" to a new market mission at the 11th hour without being reconfigured for it.

[ironlake]

If they are reconed the voice coil could be different also. I would get original woofers and refoam them and be original all the way. Put these on ebay and sell them as replacements for non fussy people.