Jump to content

2ax vs 2ax


Guest Bret

Recommended Posts

Buried within another thread someone said they'd be curious as to my opinion of a comparison of a pre-1970 AR-2ax with a 1970 and later version of the AR-2ax.

The biggest difference in these two models is the tweeter. The earlier 2ax has a surface-mounted 1 3/8" tweeter and the later model has a similar .75" tweeter.

Both have the fiberglass-filtered 3.5" conical midranges.

The older model I have has a 6-bolt alnico magneted 10" woofer, the newer model has a four-bolt, square magneted 10" woofer.

In order to be able to A/B these two systems quickly I had to use a Pioneer VSX-9500 receiver (early 80s, 125w/channel @ 8 ohms). I'm using 18 gauge wire and neither pair of speakers are in a great spot, but I didn't want to give one pair an advantage, so they sit side-by-side on the floor.

My ears are still okay as far as I can tell but I'm not a kid anymore.

Although *maybe* the old woofers are a little smoother at the top and *maybe* they go slightly, slightly, slightly lower (or have a low hump or roll-off more slowly) the new speaker, as a system, just stomps the older model in my opinion and to my sense of what good is.

The difference is in detail. The new model just has a better tweeter, not merely a louder tweeter. Imaging is better. Boxiness is lessened and everything from bottom to top ends-up sounding cleaner. There is substantially more top-end and I find that the midrange seems louder (same driver) in the newer model (x-over?) and can be turned down to get better balance than you get turning the midrange and tweeters all the way up in the older unit.

Turning the midrange down in the old model didn't sound like I raised the tweeter's output relative to the midrange. It just sounded like I turned-down the midrange. The tweeters are audibly there in the old model, but the newer tweeter is just vastly superior.

I'd be happy to hear from anyone who disagrees with me. I'd like to know what you are hearing that I'm not. I'll listen again if I need to.

I'm either very impressed with the design changes in the 1970 and later version, or I'm very disappointed with the pre-1970 version, or maybe I just have no taste.

Bret

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is certainly one of my favorite subjects, since I am an AR-2ax aficionado from way back. The 2ax represented the maximum performance-to-dollar ratio of any AR loudspeaker. At roughly one-half the cost of the 3a ($250 to $128 in oiled walnut), the 2ax delivered very nearly the same level of sonic excellence and satisfaction. The same as a 3a? Of course not. But one was clearly in the range of diminishing returns when reaching from the 2 to the 3.

Keep in mind that the original 1 3/8-inch "fried egg" dome tweeter in the first-generation 2ax dates from 1958, with the introduction of the AR-3. This was a period marked by incredibly fast, monumental changes and improvements in the audio industry. Think of what happened between 1958 (the AR-3 and its 1 3/8-inch tweeter) and 1968 (the AR-3a and its 3/4-inch tweeter): Recordings went from mono to stereo, amplifiers went from tube to transistor, turntables went from idler wheel to belt drive, etc. The pace and scope of improvement in the industry was unequalled compared to any other 10-year period in hi-fi’s history.

So it is in this historical context that the improvement from the 1 3/8-inch to the 3/4-inch tweeter should be considered. The 3/4-inch dome is one of history’s best drivers. Although the fried egg tweeter broke new ground and is historically significant for that reason, the 3/4-inch dome produces sound with an accuracy, smoothness, and uniformity that is fully competitive with any tweeter of today. The only thing that the original 3/4-inch dome of the 3a, 5, 2ax, LST and LST-2 didn’t have was ferro-fluid cooling. That came in the next generation of 3/4-inch tweeters with the 10 Pi and 11 of the ADD series in 1975. That later tweeter was also improved in terms of efficiency and available output, resulting in the ADD models having a markedly stronger energy response in the top octaves.

But again, in terms of the quality and accuracy of treble reproduction—output and efficiency considerations aside—the Classic series 3/4-inch dome was an amazing driver.

Re-read High Fidelity’s test report of the 3a from 1968, comparing it to the AR-3: "The entire treble region seem more balanced, more definite, more a part of everything else." This would also hold true for the new 2ax vs. the old 2ax. The new tweeter covered more of the spectrum (from 5000 Hz on up) with wider dispersion and better response than the older tweeter, which operated from 7500 Hz on up. What had been state-of-the-art in 1958 was merely very good in 1970.

The 2ax’s 3 1/2-inch midrange, manufactured by CTS, was the same in both versions. The woofer of the new 2ax was the same as the woofer from the 5 (which was introduced in 1969), and was the first AR 10" woofer with the foam surround. Its absolute performance parameters, in terms of resonance and LF extension, were the same as the older cloth-surround 10" versions (as the 3a’s later woofers had essentially the same performance as the older AR-1 and AR-3 woofers.)

High Fidelity’s 1970 review of the new 2ax pretty much sums it up: "It is nosed out in terms of ultimate performance, only by a small margin at the low end by systems costing considerably more." My father had 4x’s, and I’ve had 2ax’s, 3a’s, 11’s LST-2’s, 50T’s, TSW 105’s and TSW110’s. I’ve enjoyed them all, and still use my refurbished 3a’s daily. But there is absolutely no question in my mind that the new 2ax exhibited the best performance-to-cost ratio of any AR speaker, ever.

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Re-read High Fidelity’s test report of the 3a from 1968, comparing it to the AR-3: "The entire treble region seem more balanced, more definite, more a part of everything else."<

That's so much better than I said it I'm embarrassed. I suppose I won't apply for a job as a speaker reviewer.

Something I've said to some people here privately and elsewhere publically echos your comments about the 2ax in general. It does sound amazing for its price.

One of the things I've always heard in my AR speakers is that you have to get their motors running before they "open-up". A pair of 3a's played at background-level really doesn't sound very good to me. A pair of 2ax's at background level sounds like a good speaker being played softly.

But I'm not saying I prefer the 2ax to the 3a. Once you get the 3a moving some air it has siginificant advanges.

Bret

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bret and Steve,

Allow me to through in my two cents. I have done this comparison before and I did it again yesterday, as the return of the forum has really spiked my AR interest. Thanks Mark !

I used a late model Marantz PM 7000 integrated amp (95 wpc). It is quite good at driving these loads. The choice of program material also causes one to draw slightly different conclusions. In general, the biggest difference between the two designs is that the later model has better dispersion and a more open sound. This is of course due to the lower crossover points and the old vs the new tweeter. The old woofer has to reach out to 2000 Hz. This is a lot of work for this woofer and consequently there is very little dispersion in the lower midrange. The cts midrange has to reach out to 7500 HZ instead of 5000. One must factor this in when comparing the sound of these two tweeters.

I also think we are being a little too hard on the old 1 3/8" tweeter. Sure it does not have the dispersion and the energy response of it's successor, but I'll bet it will kick the crap out of many contemporary designs in these respects.

As for the value of the 2ax, it was superb then and now. 2ax's trade for peanuts on ebay. Most AR speakers are undervalued on ebay relative to their performance potential, however the 2ax's are an extreme case. They sell so cheap, right around $100.00/pair.(about $20.00 1970 constant dollars.)

One final thought: Yes, the post 1970 version is unquestionably an improved design, however it is still very cool to have both versions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Guest robobxman

Brad/Bret/Steve - I loved this thread, and your contributions. I am new to vintage audio, having found a big solid state pioneer receiver on the curbside in March and not having looked back since. In the meantime, I've accumulated a few AR speakers: 4x, 2 pairs of 2ax's (1 pre 1970, 1 post), 1 pair of 3a's. All are 7.0's cosmetically, and I'm pretty sure one woofer on the post 2ax's needs refoaming; otherwise, they all work fine except for the common pot problems. I spent $29 on the 4x's (which, coincidentally, I have paired with a set of Advent/2s ... the 4 sound terrific, the Advent's highs complementing the 4x's lows ... maybe sacrilege, but not to my ears!), $100 for the two pair of 2ax's, and $10 for the 3a's. Please note I am not bragging about these prices (I hate that), but listing them for comparisons. Anyway, after finding the 3a's, I decided to clean up the 2ax's and sell them, but now I'm not so sure! Interestingly, my older pair of 2ax's has the woofer on top vis a vis the badge and speaker terminal label orientations, a topic I raised on the forum and learned since that this speaker is designed to be placed sideways. At any rate, I don't have much to add in terms of a speaker review (other than the 3a bass is to die for, melts my soul), but once I fix the surround on the newer 2ax I'll be sure to take a crack at my first speaker review between the 2ax's. Thanks again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Buried within another thread someone said they'd be curious

>as to my opinion of a comparison of a pre-1970 AR-2ax with a

>1970 and later version of the AR-2ax.

>

>The biggest difference in these two models is the tweeter.

>The earlier 2ax has a surface-mounted 1 3/8" tweeter and the

>later model has a similar .75" tweeter.

>

>Both have the fiberglass-filtered 3.5" conical midranges.

>

>The older model I have has a 6-bolt alnico magneted 10"

>woofer, the newer model has a four-bolt, square magneted 10"

>woofer.

>

>In order to be able to A/B these two systems quickly I had to

>use a Pioneer VSX-9500 receiver (early 80s, 125w/channel @ 8

>ohms). I'm using 18 gauge wire and neither pair of speakers

>are in a great spot, but I didn't want to give one pair an

>advantage, so they sit side-by-side on the floor.

>

>My ears are still okay as far as I can tell but I'm not a kid

>anymore.

>

>Although *maybe* the old woofers are a little smoother at the

>top and *maybe* they go slightly, slightly, slightly lower (or

>have a low hump or roll-off more slowly) the new speaker, as a

>system, just stomps the older model in my opinion and to my

>sense of what good is.

>

>The difference is in detail. The new model just has a better

>tweeter, not merely a louder tweeter. Imaging is better.

>Boxiness is lessened and everything from bottom to top ends-up

>sounding cleaner. There is substantially more top-end and I

>find that the midrange seems louder (same driver) in the newer

>model (x-over?) and can be turned down to get better balance

>than you get turning the midrange and tweeters all the way up

>in the older unit.

>

>Turning the midrange down in the old model didn't sound like I

>raised the tweeter's output relative to the midrange. It just

>sounded like I turned-down the midrange. The tweeters are

>audibly there in the old model, but the newer tweeter is just

>vastly superior.

>

>I'd be happy to hear from anyone who disagrees with me. I'd

>like to know what you are hearing that I'm not. I'll listen

>again if I need to.

>

>I'm either very impressed with the design changes in the 1970

>and later version, or I'm very disappointed with the pre-1970

>version, or maybe I just have no taste.

>

>Bret

This is an interesting subjective observation, and this is a lot of what’s fun about audio, but I wonder if the differences in the pre- and post-1970 AR-2ax versions are quite as “dramatic” as described. In 1970 I listened to the new-version 1970 AR-2ax compared to the earlier version in the AR Music Room in New York’s Grand Central Terminal, and the differences, while certainly noticeable, were still quite subtle. The advantage there in the AR Music Room was the newness of both sets of speakers -- obviously in top-notch, new-working condition. Tweeter level controls and output levels were always carefully adjusted. What I heard, and what I was later told by Walter Berry, “curator” of the AR Music Room, was that the new AR-2ax was a subtle improvement over the older version, mostly in dispersion and smoothness. This it was. The new version had a more spacious sound due to the better dispersion, and better lower-midrange clarity as a result of significant improvements in the new woofer’s upper-response smoothness, lower distortion and different crossover. Incidentally, these qualities were more apparent to me once I was told what they were by Walter Berry! At the time, I was not aware of what had been changed in the AR-2ax. “Imaging,” a term not understood at that time, was not a factor, but would not have been in any case insofar as “imaging” is primarily determined by *midrange* directivity. Since both the 1964 and the 1970 AR-2axs have the same midrange, the “image” quality is probably not very different between the two. In the “for-what-it’s-worth” category, the better the off-axis dispersion, the less focused and more diffuse and spacious a speaker will sound -- and thus diminished imaging you hear as contributed by the tweeters. Therefore, the newer version, if anything, is more spacious-sounding than the old, and may actually “image” less-well than the pre-1970 design. The word “Imaging,” in any event, is not something you would find in the early AR lexicon.

The ¾-inch hard-dome tweeter is not simply a “better” tweeter than the 1-3/8-inch phenolic tweeter. It is not smoother on-axis and it does not have more extended response than the 1-3/8-inch unit. In fact, it may not have as good transient response as the 1-3/8-inch unit, which was known to have almost “electrostatic-like” transient performance. There is not greater clarity in the ¾-inch tweeter versus the 1-3/8-inch, but the sensitivity (efficiency) is higher in the ¾-inch version, and more treble is heard in the newer version. If the tweeter level in the 1970 AR-2ax had been turned down slightly during the comparison to match the pre-1970 AR-2ax tweeter level, I contend the differences would have been more subtle. The dispersion and acoustic-power response in the post-1970 version is dramatically better than the earlier version, however, and this is quite audible in the more "spacious" and 3-dimensional sound (for lack of a better description).

The new 10-inch, 4-bolt woofer, however, was an improvement over the Alnico version in smoothness in the upper range and in low distortion. It’s also crossed over lower (1400Hz vs. 2000Hz). The new cone, as well as the foam surround, contributed to an almost ruler-flat response throughout the operating range. This 10-inch woofer has a great deal to do with the superior performance of the 1970 AR-2ax.

So, there are several things to consider in this comparison. The first, and most obvious, is the state of condition of each speaker system considering age and gradual deterioration. The lack of quantitative data taints the subjective results slightly, as well.

Nevertheless, there is no question that the improvements made along the way have been significant, and quite audible. I agree with Steve F: the AR-2ax is a “sleeper,” and represents excellent value-per-dollar among the AR line. The AR-4x might be up there in that regard, as well. But both the pre- and post-AR-2ax versions were outstanding products, and there is no reason whatsoever to be disappointed with the pre-1970 version!

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there Tom

Late night reading was most enjoyable tonight as usual from you.

You and several other fellows add a lot to the wonderful history of AR.

You had opportunities to see and hear soundrooms, AR plant ? and talk to people in the industry.

I can only see pictures from the past but you having been there, done that, and you have an excellent writing manner.

How lucky you were and how fortunate we are that you so kindly share your experiences with us.

You obviously enjoy writing about what you enjoy as a hobby and I would like to personaly say thank you and look forward to reading further future writings.

Vern

>>Buried within another thread someone said they'd be curious

>>as to my opinion of a comparison of a pre-1970 AR-2ax with a

>>1970 and later version of the AR-2ax.

>>

>>The biggest difference in these two models is the tweeter.

>>The earlier 2ax has a surface-mounted 1 3/8" tweeter and the

>>later model has a similar .75" tweeter.

>>

>>Both have the fiberglass-filtered 3.5" conical midranges.

>>

>>The older model I have has a 6-bolt alnico magneted 10"

>>woofer, the newer model has a four-bolt, square magneted 10"

>>woofer.

>>

>>In order to be able to A/B these two systems quickly I had

>to

>>use a Pioneer VSX-9500 receiver (early 80s, 125w/channel @ 8

>>ohms). I'm using 18 gauge wire and neither pair of speakers

>>are in a great spot, but I didn't want to give one pair an

>>advantage, so they sit side-by-side on the floor.

>>

>>My ears are still okay as far as I can tell but I'm not a

>kid

>>anymore.

>>

>>Although *maybe* the old woofers are a little smoother at

>the

>>top and *maybe* they go slightly, slightly, slightly lower

>(or

>>have a low hump or roll-off more slowly) the new speaker, as

>a

>>system, just stomps the older model in my opinion and to my

>>sense of what good is.

>>

>>The difference is in detail. The new model just has a

>better

>>tweeter, not merely a louder tweeter. Imaging is better.

>>Boxiness is lessened and everything from bottom to top

>ends-up

>>sounding cleaner. There is substantially more top-end and

>I

>>find that the midrange seems louder (same driver) in the

>newer

>>model (x-over?) and can be turned down to get better balance

>>than you get turning the midrange and tweeters all the way

>up

>>in the older unit.

>>

>>Turning the midrange down in the old model didn't sound like

>I

>>raised the tweeter's output relative to the midrange. It

>just

>>sounded like I turned-down the midrange. The tweeters are

>>audibly there in the old model, but the newer tweeter is

>just

>>vastly superior.

>>

>>I'd be happy to hear from anyone who disagrees with me. I'd

>>like to know what you are hearing that I'm not. I'll listen

>>again if I need to.

>>

>>I'm either very impressed with the design changes in the

>1970

>>and later version, or I'm very disappointed with the

>pre-1970

>>version, or maybe I just have no taste.

>>

>>Bret

>

>This is an interesting subjective observation, and this is a

>lot of what’s fun about audio, but I wonder if the differences

>in the pre- and post-1970 AR-2ax versions are quite as

>“dramatic” as described. In 1970 I listened to the

>new-version 1970 AR-2ax compared to the earlier version in the

>AR Music Room in New York’s Grand Central Terminal, and the

>differences, while certainly noticeable, were still quite

>subtle. The advantage there in the AR Music Room was the

>newness of both sets of speakers -- obviously in top-notch,

>new-working condition. Tweeter level controls and output

>levels were always carefully adjusted. What I heard, and what

>I was later told by Walter Berry, “curator” of the AR Music

>Room, was that the new AR-2ax was a subtle improvement over

>the older version, mostly in dispersion and smoothness. This

>it was. The new version had a more spacious sound due to the

>better dispersion, and better lower-midrange clarity as a

>result of significant improvements in the new woofer’s

>upper-response smoothness, lower distortion and different

>crossover. Incidentally, these qualities were more apparent

>to me once I was told what they were by Walter Berry! At the

>time, I was not aware of what had been changed in the AR-2ax.

>“Imaging,” a term not understood at that time, was not a

>factor, but would not have been in any case insofar as

>“imaging” is primarily determined by *midrange* directivity.

>Since both the 1964 and the 1970 AR-2axs have the same

>midrange, the “image” quality is probably not very different

>between the two. In the “for-what-it’s-worth” category, the

>better the off-axis dispersion, the less focused and more

>diffuse and spacious a speaker will sound -- and thus

>diminished imaging you hear as contributed by the tweeters.

>Therefore, the newer version, if anything, is more

>spacious-sounding than the old, and may actually “image”

>less-well than the pre-1970 design. The word “Imaging,” in any

>event, is not something you would find in the early AR

>lexicon.

>

>The ¾-inch hard-dome tweeter is not simply a “better” tweeter

>than the 1-3/8-inch phenolic tweeter. It is not smoother

>on-axis and it does not have more extended response than the

>1-3/8-inch unit. In fact, it may not have as good transient

>response as the 1-3/8-inch unit, which was known to have

>almost “electrostatic-like” transient performance. There is

>not greater clarity in the ¾-inch tweeter versus the

>1-3/8-inch, but the sensitivity (efficiency) is higher in the

>¾-inch version, and more treble is heard in the newer version.

> If the tweeter level in the 1970 AR-2ax had been turned down

>slightly during the comparison to match the pre-1970 AR-2ax

>tweeter level, I contend the differences would have been more

>subtle. The dispersion and acoustic-power response in the

>post-1970 version is dramatically better than the earlier

>version, however, and this is quite audible in the more

>"spacious" and 3-dimensional sound (for lack of a better

>description).

>

>The new 10-inch, 4-bolt woofer, however, was an improvement

>over the Alnico version in smoothness in the upper range and

>in low distortion. It’s also crossed over lower (1400Hz vs.

>2000Hz). The new cone, as well as the foam surround,

>contributed to an almost ruler-flat response throughout the

>operating range. This 10-inch woofer has a great deal to do

>with the superior performance of the 1970 AR-2ax.

>

>So, there are several things to consider in this comparison.

>The first, and most obvious, is the state of condition of each

>speaker system considering age and gradual deterioration. The

>lack of quantitative data taints the subjective results

>slightly, as well.

>

>Nevertheless, there is no question that the improvements made

>along the way have been significant, and quite audible. I

>agree with Steve F: the AR-2ax is a “sleeper,” and represents

>excellent value-per-dollar among the AR line. The AR-4x might

>be up there in that regard, as well. But both the pre- and

>post-AR-2ax versions were outstanding products, and there is

>no reason whatsoever to be disappointed with the pre-1970

>version!

>

>--Tom Tyson

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>Hi there Tom

>

>Late night reading was most enjoyable tonight as usual from

>you.

>

>You and several other fellows add a lot to the wonderful

>history of AR.

>

>You had opportunities to see and hear soundrooms, AR plant ?

>and talk to people in the industry.

>

>I can only see pictures from the past but you having been

>there, done that, and you have an excellent writing manner.

>

>How lucky you were and how fortunate we are that you so kindly

>share your experiences with us.

>

>You obviously enjoy writing about what you enjoy as a hobby

>and I would like to personaly say thank you and look forward

>to reading further future writings.

>

>

>Vern

>

Hi Vern,

First of all, thanks for your nice comments! There were times in the recent past where I was tempted to depart the forum due to some critical remarks made about some very knowledgeable, innocent, members, so it was very pleasant to hear your positive remarks.

I have been very fortunate to have experienced AR in its fairly early history, and to have known many of the people in that organization through the years. We have a great AR forum here, and I will do the best I can to keep it active and interesting!

--Tom Tyson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bocoogto

The differences in sound quality between the early and late AR2ax must be similar to the differences between the AR3 and AR3a--the changes to the systems were similar.

I very clearly remember how the AR3a was "hands down" winner when comparing it to the AR3. Except in a very "live" room, the AR3, even with the tweeter and midrange level controls turned all the way up, lacked mid and high frequency output. The AR3a sounded like a blanket was taken off the grille of the AR3.

Reliability was much improved, also. I drove my AR3's with McIntosh and Dynaco vacuum tube amps, and went through many mids and tweeters under warranty. When the replacements furnished were AR3a mids and tweeters, no more failures occurred. I still have 3's and 3a's, but much prefer the a's. For some reason, my AR2a's with the "fried egg" tweeter sound brighter than the AR3's.

I, too, want to compliment Tom Tyson for his input, great knowledge, and patience when dealing with those that have no courtesy when expressing their opinion. Keep it up, Tom!!

Dick Boneske

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>The differences in sound quality between the early and late

>AR2ax must be similar to the differences between the AR3 and

>AR3a--the changes to the systems were similar.

>

>I very clearly remember how the AR3a was "hands down" winner

>when comparing it to the AR3. Except in a very "live" room,

>the AR3, even with the tweeter and midrange level controls

>turned all the way up, lacked mid and high frequency output.

>The AR3a sounded like a blanket was taken off the grille of

>the AR3.

>

>Reliability was much improved, also. I drove my AR3's with

>McIntosh and Dynaco vacuum tube amps, and went through many

>mids and tweeters under warranty. When the replacements

>furnished were AR3a mids and tweeters, no more failures

>occurred. I still have 3's and 3a's, but much prefer the a's.

> For some reason, my AR2a's with the "fried egg" tweeter sound

>brighter than the AR3's.

>

>I, too, want to compliment Tom Tyson for his input, great

>knowledge, and patience when dealing with those that have no

>courtesy when expressing their opinion. Keep it up, Tom!!

>

>Dick Boneske

Dick this is really interesting. I wonder why the AR-2a would have higher tweeter output than the AR-3 ?

And Tom, Don't you be going anywhere !! Myself and others I'm sure, would really miss your contributions, and the forum would not be the same without you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bocoogto

Even though the AR2a tweeter looks like the AR3 tweeter, it is eight ohms instead of four. AR's engineers must have increased the efficiency of the tweeter when they designed the eight ohm voice coil. This is the only way to explain the brighter sound of the AR2a. Isn't the efficiency of the AR2a slightly higher than the AR3? It's hard to tell when doing A/B switching because the AR3 is always louder due to lower impedance (when you use a dpdt switch like I do) when driven by a solid state amplifier. When we used a Dynaco Stereo 70 for the A/B tests, we used one channel connected to the AR3 via the four ohm tap--the other to the AR2a or other eight ohm speaker connected to the eight ohm tap and used the preamp balance control to switch speakers. When doing this, the AR2a was louder for any given input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bocoogto

I don't know about the AR5. Never had one. Did you ever wonder why AR designed the AR3, AR3a, ARLST at four ohms and all the other models of that era at eight ohms? It cost them to produce similar drivers of different impedances for each system. What did it gain them? This was when most amplifiers were vacuum tube and had 4, 8, & 16 ohm taps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I don't know about the AR5. Never had one. Did you ever

>wonder why AR designed the AR3, AR3a, ARLST at four ohms and

>all the other models of that era at eight ohms? It cost them

>to produce similar drivers of different impedances for each

>system. What did it gain them? This was when most amplifiers

>were vacuum tube and had 4, 8, & 16 ohm taps.

Yes, I have wondered about this. Did it have something to do with the amplifiers of the time ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi there

I believe I read that the original AR1 high range 8" speaker was 4 ohms.

I don't know the impedance of the prototype woofer that Ed Vilchur had his wife cut bedding material for the surround and he altered the spider.

It may have been 4 ohm as well.

I believe that 16 ohms was a popular impedance for the high efficiency brand speakers.

Somewhere in my reading AR was buying from OEM's as they could not afford to start manufacturing their own speakers at the very beginning of AR.

Hope to read more from other readers.

Have a great evening.

Vern

>>I don't know about the AR5. Never had one. Did you ever

>>wonder why AR designed the AR3, AR3a, ARLST at four ohms and

>>all the other models of that era at eight ohms? It cost

>them

>>to produce similar drivers of different impedances for each

>>system. What did it gain them? This was when most

>amplifiers

>>were vacuum tube and had 4, 8, & 16 ohm taps.

>

>

>Yes, I have wondered about this. Did it have something to do

>with the amplifiers of the time ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...