Jump to content

just got two pairs of MST's


Joel

Recommended Posts

I'm still using the working MST as my center channel for my HT. I just bought a mid-70's Sony amp to use with my AR-4x's- really fabulous sound.

If I could get the other MST working, I would probably move them to the side channels for the HT, but I haven't had time to even look at them. There was a post earlier about replacement tweeters for the AR-4x. Would they also work in the MST? The link is here: http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?showtopic=7563

-Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, just saw this interesting thread. What a score. You probably already know anyway however I came across this site that sells AR parts for the classic Acoustic Research speakers. Hope it helps: http://www.abtechser...arspeakers.html

AB Tech drivers usually fit the cabinet hole, but are not a sonic match to the original drivers...and some of the drivers shown on the website are no longer available.

Roy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HI all

I have been watching this thread since it started up. I recently managed to obtain a well cared for pair of MST-1 speakers. They had been recently refoamed (quite well) and have a very pleasant sound - all drivers appear to work fortunately. They dont image that well c/w AR-90s but are from a differnt era. The grilles are in good condition if a little discoloured, so Im going to leave well enough alone aside from some Howards- unless people think I should look at the caps. They are definately keepers along with a pair of 3A improved and a mint pairt of AR-90s that I have manged to find here in Australia.

A problem is that they seem to have very little in the way of documentation - they are not in the spreadsheet of all the AR Models, and aside from this website, very little is said of them. Does anyone have an idea on how many of these were actually made? They appear to have cost quite a bit to produce and would have been priced accordingly, which must have restricted the market availble to them. I'm keeping them anyway as I think they are pretty fine speakers in their own right and very cool, but are they one of the collectable ARs?

Kevin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Oops, I neglected to address my thoughts from Kev_Rat's post. I, too, remain very curious about the MST's, and agree that they do not have much published material available. In terms of being "collectable", part of me says "yes" b/c they seem to be rather rare; while part of me says "maybe not" b/c they do not seem to have many passionate and dedicated followers. I've personally never seen or heard a pair, but I am inclined to believe these speakers are keepers.

It is surprising to hear from you that they do not "image" that well - - - if anything, I would have thought that the MST's, with their asymmetrical driver layout, might have offered superior stereo imaging presence with the option of locating the "third" tweeters toward either the interior or the exterior of the soundstage, depending on the particular room dynamics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I'd be very surprised if they "imaged" particularly well at all. They're just not designed to.

1. The third tweeter (on the side panel) operated only above 5000 Hz, well above the midrange area where speakers deliver so-called "imaging."

2. AR was not concerned about ethereal, unquantifiable things like imaging at the time of the MST's market life, in 1975-76.

3. The tweeters on the front panel that did operate in the imaging frequency range (x-o at 1600 Hz) were mounted side-by-side, exactly the wrong thing to do for "imaging." In the near- to medium-field, the destructive picket-fencing and FR interference of side-by-side drivers operating in the same frequency range will be quite audible. It will be the opposite of good "imaging." Once farther back, of course, it matters a lot less.

4. Remember, the MST was originally a 4-tweeter design. They had to drop one tweeter because the FR interference was so bad and they couldn't solve it. Internal AR documents show that AR knew the AR-7 was superior to the MST! The 3-tweeter version was an 11th-hour compromise, a way for AR to keep the LST-styled cabinet on a lower cost speaker, which was the whole intent of the MST to begin with. The "switch the inner tweeter around for the imaging effect you prefer" line was a marketing rationale, at best. Making lemonade out of lemons and all that. I don't know why AR kept the 4-tweeter version for Europe.

In any event, in the far field, the MST sounded like a spacious -7 or -6, which is very nice. Up close, it was less well behaved.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Bought a pair of AR-MST out of curiosity (4-tweeter version). The tweeters to the right replaced with some unknown tweeter on both speakers??

Maybe the original tweeters used in AR-3A Improved which was a part of the package..

One option is to "convert" to MST-1! Plug one tweeter opening and get a stereo pair?

But, would like to check the x-over. New caps and maybe modifications from 4 to 3 tweeter.

Anyone with info about the x-overs?

Is it known how many pairs where produced of AR-MST and AR-MST-1?

Regards Johnny

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point of the LST and MST was not "imaging," but maximizing HF dispersion, which is actually more or less the reverse of imaging. Classic era ARs predate the strange desire many modern listeners have to be able to pick out a single instrument from an entire orchestra when symphony halls are designed to blend the multiple instruments of an orchestra together into an undifferentiated whole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...