The AR-16—the 4th ADD Speaker System

[tysontom]

We've talked about the AR-16 somewhat in the past, but not a great deal has been said about it since so few were produced. It was a somewhat over-engineered speaker with an elaborate crossover, expensive drivers and nice cabinet details. The 16 was the 4^th speaker in a series of designs from AR's Norwood Advanced Development Division engineering effort, falling in place after the AR-10π, the AR-11 and the AR-MST/1. It was introduced to dealers in November 1975 and was introduced to the public (and began shipping in) mid-February, 1976. The AR-12 and AR-14 were next, followed by the AR-15.

Interestingly, the AR-16 was designed to replace the AR-4xa and AR-6, and it used the new Peerless (later AR-built) 1-inch cloth-dome tweeter, very similar to the one used in the early AR-14—no Ferrofluid ever, however. The AR-14 got Ferrofluid, along with all of the other ADD speakers (AR-10, AR-11, AR-12, AR-15, AR-17 and AR-18) in the period from October 1976 through June 1977. The AR-16, however, did get an elaborate half-section (on each driver) LCR crossover with electrolytic capacitors and air-core chokes—more sophisticated than with either the AR-4^xa or AR-6. The low-frequency response of the 16 was the same as the AR-2a^x (as well as the AR-6 and later AR-15), and the new tweeter had the advantage of a front baffle free of edges and moldings, thus the speaker enjoyed a basically diffraction-free output with wide dispersion. The first AR-16s were available in a walnut-grained genuine-wood cabinet for $99.95 each (available in pairs only, however); however, by the time production began, a walnut-finish vinyl cabinet was offered for $99.95 and a genuine-wood-veneer version for $115.00 each.

AR was very proud of the performance of the new AR-16 (flattest anechoic-energy response to date measured in their new semi-reverberant chamber), but it was one speaker designed initially to replace two speakers from before: the AR-4^xa and the AR-6. Soon, however, the company introduced the AR-15 (AR-6-sized), the AR-17 (a better replacement for the 4 and the AR-18 (AR-7 replacement), and the AR-16 died on the vine after a little over a year of production.

--Tom Tyson

[ra.ra]

Thanks, Tom - - - yet another terrific write-up about a relatively obscure, but excellent, AR speaker model with ample supportive historical perspective. I, for one, know that I have never seen or heard this particular product, and because I have a strong interest in several of the smaller AR products of a similar or earlier vintage (AR-4's, 6's and 7's, etc.), I will now always keep an eye (and ear) out for AR-16's.

Looking at your rundown of the various speaker models from the ADD series, it occurred to me for the first time that perhaps there was never a model designated as AR-13. Curiously, I am left to wonder if this number possibly represents an aborted product development effort by AR. Better yet is the theory that maybe this model number was avoided altogether in much the same spirit that many early skyscrapers failed to designate floors of buildings with the number13 for reasons of superstition.

[JKent]

Looking at your rundown of the various speaker models from the ADD series, it occurred to me for the first time that perhaps there was never a model designated as AR-13. Curiously, I am left to wonder if this number possibly represents an aborted product development effort by AR. Better yet is the theory that maybe this model number was avoided altogether in much the same spirit that many early skyscrapers failed to designate floors of buildings with the number13 for reasons of superstition.

Superstitious scientists? Maybe, but it wasn't Henry Kloss. There IS a KLH Model Thirteen (always spelled out). See attachment to Post #2 here: http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?showtopic=6387#entry94416

Kent

[Steve F]

I agree with ra.ra about the reason for no AR-13. I have absolutely no proof or documentation, but I believe that is the reason.

Re the AR-16: I remember this speaker well (and I submitted the 16's lit along with the other ADD model lit in the Library). In 1976, WBUR (Boston University's radio station, where I went to college) had a Saturday morning hi-fi show called "Shop Talk," co-hosted by the famous Peter Mitchell and local Boston Dr and hi-fi enthusiast Dick Goldwater. I remember WBUR ( being an NPR station) was having a fundraiser, and Shop Talk was offering a pair of AR-16's to the first caller who made a donation of $x.

I heard the AR-16 many times and each time I came away with the same impression: It was thin, shrill and bass-shy. Regardless of what the "numbers" said or what the measurements "proved," the AR-16 did not sound very good. AR knew it too, and that's why the 16 died so quickly. The AR-15--the 6's true successor--was a superb speaker, with all the solidity and surprising bass of the 6, coupled with the ADD Series' vastly improved high end. But the 16 was a dud, both in sound and market performance, and AR was forced to move quickly--which they did.

Steve F.

[tysontom]

Re the AR-16: I remember this speaker well (and I submitted the 16's lit along with the other ADD model lit in the Library). In 1976, WBUR (Boston University's radio station, where I went to college) had a Saturday morning hi-fi show called "Shop Talk," co-hosted by the famous Peter Mitchell and local Boston Dr and hi-fi enthusiast Dick Goldwater. I remember WBUR ( being an NPR station) was having a fundraiser, and Shop Talk was offering a pair of AR-16's to the first caller who made a donation of $x.

I heard the AR-16 many times and each time I came away with the same impression: It was thin, shrill and bass-shy. Regardless of what the "numbers" said or what the measurements "proved," the AR-16 did not sound very good. AR knew it too, and that's why the 16 died so quickly. The AR-15--the 6's true successor--was a superb speaker, with all the solidity and surprising bass of the 6, coupled with the ADD Series' vastly improved high end. But the 16 was a dud, both in sound and market performance, and AR was forced to move quickly--which they did.

Steve F.

This reaction (or perhaps over-reaction?) regarding the AR-16 describes what happens when a speaker is designed to produce flat, on-axis frequency response in anechoic space. The AR-16 was just that, it was a bit dry-sounding and it lacked deep bass typical of the larger ARs. I owned AR-16s for a period of time, and I would agree that the sound could be subjectively "thin" at times, but this was due to the forward treble output, giving the speaker a 'bright" characteristic. But the speaker was very clean-sounding and natural, especially in the midrange and treble. The AR-16 used the Peerless version of the 1-inch tweeter, and the reject rate for early versions of this tweeter was abysmal. This earliest production examples of the 16 did sound a bit harsh, and the tweeter exhibited relatively high distortion, but the problems were corrected quickly after introduction of the speaker. Later, AR built the 1-inch tweeter in-house, and the result was an improved tweeter with less distortion. Unfortunately, the AR-16 did not benefit from the addition of the AR version of the 1-inch tweeter, even though later versions of the Peerless 1-inch were satisfactory.

When Julian Hirsch commented on the AR-16, he noted that, "...we obtained an unusually flat frequency response of ±1.5 dB from 100 to 15,000 Hz. There was a 3.5 dB rise at the bass resonance of about 60 Hz. The overall response variation was an impressive ±2.5 dB from 30 to 15,000 Hz...." Note: the Q of the AR-16 was 1.15—slightly making the bass response slightly under-damped—thus accounting for the intentional rise at resonance to give a warmer sense to the bass. But it is usually unavoidable: getting truly flat on-axis, anechoic frequency response can sometimes impart a sense of brightness, especially if one is used to broad, but downward-sloping power response as in the case of nearly all of AR's typical speaker designs.

The AR-16 died because: 1) it was an interim speaker designed to "fill" in the space until the AR-4xa and AR-6 replacements could be completed; 2) it wasn't profitable because it was too expensive to produce at the relatively low price-point and 3) it was not selling in the number originally intended for it. It wasn't killed because AR thought it sounded bad.

I agree that the AR-15 sounded somewhat better ("warmer," "fuller") but it used the same basic components as the AR-16 in a different cabinet that was very slightly larger (0.67 cu. ft. vs. 0.64 cu. ft.), and thus it had a slightly fuller low-frequency response that would give it a warmer sound. Ironically, the 15 had a higher crossover frequency—1700 Hz vs. 1300 Hz in the AR-16. The AR-15 also had the advantage of the newer and better AR version of the 1-inch tweeter, and this tweeter proved to be smoother in response than the early versions of the AR-16's Peerless tweeter.

--Tom Tyson

[Steve F]

The AR-16 was one of the very few outright failures in the Classic-ADD timeframe; the AR-8 could be considered the other major disappointment. Speaking from extensive personal experience on the 'inside' of product development/engineering and marketing, no product is intended as a temporary or "interim" product. It simply takes too long and costs too much money to intend, going in, that a product will be "temporary." Sure, a product may be a result of "parts bin engineering" or it may intentionally be introduced with less than the ideal component parts (like the 1983 Chrysler minivans being introduced only with 2 puny 4-cylinder engines, before they had a 6-cylinder engine to offer), but nonetheless, the intent is for that product is to be successful and profitable on its own--regardless of what future products or component improvements may or may not be in the pipeline.

The AR-16 was not a result of convenience and "parts bin" engineering. The 16 used a brand-new cabinet design, a brand-new grille design, a new tweeter, a new, more elaborate crossover, etc. It was a very intentionally thought-out design, not a slap-together effort. It was simply a failure, but not because it was intended to be a "temporary" band-aid fix.

The AR-4xa could be held up as a perfect example of "parts bin" engineering: They already had the cabinet, the grille, the woofer, and the tweeter, just sitting there. They had the need to upgrade the 4x. They went to the parts bin and created the 4xa. The 4xa is proof that a parts-bin-engineered product is not necessarily a bad one.

The AR-16 is proof that a ground-up, freshly-thought-out product is not necessarily going to be a success.

Steve F.

[RoyC]

I have no experience with the AR-16, so can't offer any subjective comments on how it sounded.

Regardless of what it was intended to replace, it occurs to me that the 16 was introduced into a very competitive market. It was going up against similar models from Advent, EPI, Avid, etc, in that price category. Upon introduction, the AR-4x/xa/6 did not have to deal with this type of competition (though I may have read somewhere the Dynaco A25 ultimately outsold all of those AR 2-way models).

Tom/Steve...How did subsequent 2-way AR models fair at this price point?

Roy

[tysontom]

I have no experience with the AR-16, so can't offer any subjective comments on how it sounded.

Regardless of what it was intended to replace, it occurs to me that the 16 was introduced into a very competitive market. It was going up against similar models from Advent, EPI, Avid, etc, in that price category. Upon introduction, the AR-4x/xa/6 did not have to deal with this type of competition (though I may have read somewhere the Dynaco A25 ultimately outsold all of those AR 2-way models).

Tom/Steve...How did subsequent 2-way AR models fair at this price point?

Roy

Roy & Steve,

While the AR-16 wasn't a success story by any means, to describe it as an "outright failure" is a bit of a stretch. I think it sold reasonably well during its short lifespan—perhaps >1k per month during its brief lifetime—and was designed to fill the need for the recently discontinued AR-4^xa, AR-6 and AR-7 (AR was preparing to discontinue all of the classic line during the summer before the introduction of the new ADD speakers). I mischaracterized it by stating that it was an "interim" speaker; it was indeed designed to stand on its own merits, for sure. I suspect that AR intended for it to be the high-performance, 8-inch-version ADD speaker to fill the void left by the classic versions. But the AR-16 wasn't alone in the slow-selling category: along with the earlier AR-8, the AR-MST/1 and the AR-4^xa were relatively slow selling speakers. Even the AR-6 and AR-5 didn't sell in huge numbers, so this was nothing new to AR.

Steve is also correct that the AR-16 was the result of intensive engineering effort. I have the original AR-16 "work book," and it has probably 250 pages and as many anechoic and reverberant-chamber response and crossover-network graphs. In addition, there are literally hundreds of other individual response curves taken with each crossover iteration or each different driver, etc. Some were done in England; others were done in Norwood. Originally called the "AR-9," it later morphed into the AR-16. Originally, AR wanted to use the AR-7/AR-MST-type tweeter, but that tweeter lacked sufficient sensitivity and capability to go low enough for the desired crossover. The Peerless K10DT 1-inch tweeter was selected for the AR-16, and this tweeter had a few problems that took a lot of engineering-crossover work to resolve. Many examples had excessive distortion and had to be rejected (AR in time decided to make their own version of the tweeter, but it was not used on the AR-16), and nearly all of those 1-inch tweeters had very smooth output up to around 12kHz, where a 3-4 dB hump in the response occurred (presumably to offset for off-axis losses). The high-frequency "hump" was fairly typical of all of the 1-inch dome tweeters commercially available at the time. AR also tried a version of the Philips 1-inch doped-plastic-dome tweeter (AD0160/T), but examples of this tweeter had issues as well.

Roy, the AR-16 was introduced to a market filled with excellent 8-inch speakers, as you suggest, so it had lots of competition. The Dynaco A25 was a relatively high-performance, low-cost 10-inch speaker that arrived in the mid-60s—long before any of the ADD speakers—and was really more competitive with the likes of the AR-2a^x in the deep bass. It was actually priced between the AR-4^x and AR-2a^x systems, and it became a top seller with well over a half-million speakers sold. Had the AR-16 been introduced several years earlier—such as in the late 60s—it probably would have fared much better in the marketplace. It also was over-engineered for a simple 2-way 8-inch speaker, and the "cost" of the speaker was much too high to make it profitable at its competitive price-point. The crossover alone was about twice as expensive as anything previously, and the 1-inch dome tweeter was much more expensive than the AR-6-type tweeter. The subsequent 2-way models—AR-15, AR-17 and AR-18—filled the cost segment for 8-inch speakers well, and eliminated the need for the AR-16. The AR-18 (as Steve notes) was a better replacement for the AR-6 and produced somewhat cleaner low-frequency output. Overall, it had a very similar balance to the AR-16, but it was warmer-sounding due to larger enclosure and the improved AR 1-inch tweeter (flatter with less distortion). It also was up to around $130, so it was more profitable to cover the additional costs. The AR-17 was a low-cost but decent speaker to fill the AR-4^xa void, and the AR-18 came along to take the place of the AR-7.

All in all, the AR-16 was a good speaker and had an interesting history!

--Tom Tyson

[Steve F]

Tom--

Typo above--you meant to say that the AR-15 (not 18) was a better replacement for the 6 than the 16 was.

This whole category was an example of AR's mis-directed marketing: they had far too many redundant 8" 2-ways. They didn't need the 7-4xa-6 at that time, and they certainly didn't need the 16-15-17-18 so close or overlapping each other.

But the competitive marketplace sorted things out, as a free capitalistic market almost always does. The consumer picks the winners and losers. The 18 was the winner, and rightly so. Its combination of terrific performance, affordability and compact size won out over the razor-thin improvement in bass response that could be gotten by going to the 17, and the 18 was a far, far better value than the 15. AR just didn't need all those 8" models and why they persisted in having them from 1972-1978-ish is a mystery to me. The phrase "asleep at the switch" comes to mind. Good products when considered onto themselves, but it was bad strategic product planning.

Steve F.

[Jeff_C]

I know this is an old thread but I would like to add my two cents here about the AR-16. To put my comments in perspective I had better confess that I have not heard many speakers in the AR range and my speakers have generally been at/near the budget end of the market.

The first speakers I bought were the AR-6. It was a long time ago but I remember the 6 having plenty of decent bass, but the overall sound was not quite right. To me they sounded “boxed–in”, “chesty”. I think Steve F (from one of his library letters) has described the 6 as "honky" and that is as good a way as any of describing them.

A few years after the AR-6 I bought the AR-16 in January 1977. It was either a bold or foolish step at the time because I remember they sounded nothing like other speakers available at a similar price point. I was just following AR brand loyalty when I bought them. I would agree with two of the adjectives used by Steve F that the AR-16 was "thin" and "bass-shy". Very quickly though, I began to realise that the AR-16 was giving a decent accurate representation of the music. Now this may be partly to do with me becoming conditioned to the sound of the 16, but I believe it was more to do with the fact that the 16 *was/is* more accurate, and that other speakers of the era were attempting to be more “hi-fi” rather than accurate. Bass was augmented by substituting the thin connecting cable given with the speakers by the hi-fi shop with QED 79 strand cable. I have always operated them with the switch in the “flat” position. The “roll-off” position gives a 3dB per octave roll-off above 4000Hz.

An unexpected bonus with the 16 was/is their ability to re-create a 3-dimensional image if given space away from room boundaries. To me other speakers of the era sounded muddy and veiled, and very few (at this price point) had an ability to “image”. The 16 was clean sounding and natural. I did not buy these speakers based on their “numbers” and “measurements, I knew nothing of that at the time, but I do believe that the “numbers” and “measurements” do not lie. It seems to me that AR set out to produce a good quality speaker at the budget end of the market and they succeeded in that goal. If it was introduced in part to replace the AR-6 it was a far better speaker, at a modest increase in cost over the 6. From the minimal amount of information available (most of which is in earlier posts in this thread) I would say the model failed because :-

(i) the public was not ready for a speaker that sounded the way the 16 did. (It’s sound would probably be better received today now that people are more accustomed to accuracy).

(ii) it was unprofitable to continue it, with the high quality / high cost parts and especially following increased contingent costs surrounding the reject rate of the mid/tweeter unit.

Steve F said “the AR-16 did not sound very good. AR knew it too, and that’s why the 16 died so quickly” – Surely if AR “knew it” they would never have brought it to market in the first place” and concentrated on the other models that must have already been in the pipeline. AR more likely misjudged how poorly an accurate speaker would be received by the public at that time. Even if it were to be accepted that the 16 was an “outright failure” commercially, I would want to defend it as a high quality speaker which failed. In my view it is an exceptional speaker for the money years ahead of its time.

I bought my pair of 16s in teak veneer for 105 GBP, a bargain, (equivalent to 180 USD at the time), a nice discount from the usual 156 GBP. I got this discount because someone had bought them, written his name all over the box, but found they did not like them when they got them home, so returned them to the shop within a week. I am grateful to that person but also sorry that he did not persevere with them for his own sake. He was probably seeking a more familiar sound provided by the majority of other speakers of the era in that price bracket. I can understand why many others would feel the same as he.

But today I am convinced that anyone hearing the AR-16 would consider them an excellent well-balanced speaker at the price point for a model manufactured in the mid-seventies. Having just got my pair of AR-16 restored (after 20 years in storage with foam rot) they are once again my main listening speaker of choice relegating Revel M22 and Mission 751. Today I appreciate their sound even more than I did 37 years ago when I bought them.

In another thread about the AR-16 “audiochat” declares his preference for the 16 over the well liked AR-4x.

http://www.classicspeakerpages.net/IP.Board/index.php?showtopic=7530

Finally, I have all the original documentation with these speakers, some of which is not available in the library, but it is aimed at the British market, with HQ shown as High St, Houghton Regis, Dunstable, Bedfordshire, UK. If members believe it would be a worthwhile addition for the library. I will try and gain access to a scanner and get the documents scanned-in. I have attached a photo, which gives a flavour of the documents.

A Happy and Healthy New Year to all.