New AR3a owner

[canuckaudioguy]

Hello CSP!

This is my first post here.. glad to be here, I recently got myself a set of AR3as.

Here's a pic:

They don't have their original tweeters, they have the HiVi Q1R replacement. Otherwise they are a second generation AR3a in awesome shape. Really happy to have them

They've had work done to them. I recapped them earlier this year, and replaced the L-pads. Then in speaking with Roy, I put 25ohm resistors in parallel with the drivers and also replaced the 6uF cap with a 4.4uF film cap.

Unfortunately, they don't sound quite right yet. I think I need to get some proper stands for them. The bass tends to be pretty heavy so I'm hoping my room correction device and the stands will tame that a bit. Otherwise, the midrange is really sweet. I can sort of see what these are about, but once I get them singing right I will be sure to let you all know what I think about the sound.

[xmas111]

Beautiful looking 3a's!

Can't really speak for the heavy bass your getting but maybe stands will help.

Sure other will chime in with some suggestions for you.

In the mean time enjoy, great speakers.

Of all the AR's I have the Stacked 3a's are my favorite right now.

John

[canuckaudioguy]

Beautiful looking 3a's!

Can't really speak for the heavy bass your getting but maybe stands will help.

Sure other will chime in with some suggestions for you.

In the mean time enjoy, great speakers.

Of all the AR's I have the Stacked 3a's are my favorite right now.

John

Thanks! I'm pretty happy with them.

I think I might have fixed the sonic issues. Roy recommended removing the 25ohm resistor I had placed in parallel with the tweeter, and it seems a heck of a lot better now! The bass doesn't sound boomy and they aren't dull. I'm gonna have to get some stands for these though, having them on the floor pointed up just doesn't do these justice.

Now on to listening!

[Shacky]

They are gorgeous! Can you redo my cabs for me?

I have original tweeters and mine are bass heavy - but it's what I love about them. I use 13" VPI center speaker stands. They seem to be perfect fit.

[canuckaudioguy]

They are gorgeous! Can you redo my cabs for me?

I have original tweeters and mine are bass heavy - but it's what I love about them. I use 13" VPI center speaker stands. They seem to be perfect fit.

Thanks! All I did was use some Howard's Restor-a-Finish on them along with some Feed-n-Wax. Made the cabinets pop.

I actually don't mind the bass now that the sound is balanced. I think the way Roy had me wire these up, the tweeters have more output than the originals so they don't sound rolled off to my ears.

Well, now that I've lived with them for a while, I can tell you guys what I think about their sound.

Basically, these are great mid-fi speakers. Hi-fi is not the word I would even begin to think about when describing the sound these produce. This isn't a bad thing though, it's a part of their magic formula. The midrange is colored in a pleasing way, and the bass is pretty deep for a speaker this size. They really do sound like floorstanders. And, the bass is pretty nice too. I was playing the soundtrack from Avatar, and there are a few tracks on there with really deep bass. Now, keep in mind I am used to listening to Kef Reference 107s which are -2dB at 20Hz, or say a set of big IMFs capable of reaching down to 20Hz. However, the ARs don't make me feel like I've lost a lot. I mean sure. the bass is definitely superior on my Kefs and IMFs (especially the IMFs) but still, for a speaker in this price point and age, impressive.

I find overall the sound to be relaxed and mellow. I don't mean they sound tiring or boring, actually quite the opposite of that. When it comes to rhythm, these speakers have it in spades. But they don't try hard to be good at anything, and are just a good representation of what good audio reproduction was like back in their time. I can certainly see why these made AR famous.

Overall, I'm really enjoying these. So much so that I've built a system around them. It's nice to have the big system with my large Kefs and IMFs, but for just enjoying music at a lower volume without crazy dynamics, these AR 3a's are fantastic. They can handle dynamics when called for, but I prefer to reserve the best tool for the job for that. These are gonna serve me well where I am going to put them and I can't wait to get the system up and running. For now I'm gonna keep enjoying these in my reference set-up. I'm happy to see what these great AR speakers are all about, always been curious and now I know. Maybe now I'll have to look for some LSTs.

[soundminded]

These are extremely difficult speakers to drive properly, especially the deep bass. They require an amplifier with a lot of power at low frequencies and stability with very low impedance loads. There are many reasonably priced amplifiers on the market today that can drive them successfully. Unlike ported speakers they can also be equalized to extend their useful bass range. This is because below resonance they fall smoothly at only 12db per octave. Their harmonic distortion at 30 hz is around 5% or less. (Ken Kantor recently reported he measured 2% on Audiokarma.) They are rated to handle 150 watts RMS and tests in the 1970s showed they could handle peak impulse power over 1kw with damage. In a live versus recorded test of the original version AR1W in the mid 1950s they impressed audio engineers of the New York Audio League (later called AES) when playing against an Aolean Skinner pipe organ at Riverside Church in Manhattan.

The size of the enclosure is not related to bass capability in the way you think. In this design a small enclosure is required because the speaker's restoring force is largely derived from differences in air pressure between the space in the room and the space within the sealed cabinet. If the enclosure is too large, the pressure difference won't build up sufficiently. This contrasts to other designs including infinite baffle sealed designs which rely on the mechanical restoring force of the driver itself to restore the cone to its neutral position.

[JKent]

Basically, these are great mid-fi speakers. Hi-fi is not the word I would even begin to think about when describing the sound these produce.

Heresy! I'm organizing a posse of CSP members to head into the Great White North to tar you with Aleene's Tacky Glue and feather you with old deteriorated woofer foam!

Kent

[canuckaudioguy]

These are extremely difficult speakers to drive properly, especially the deep bass. They require an amplifier with a lot of power at low frequencies and stability with very low impedance loads. There are many reasonably priced amplifiers on the market today that can drive them successfully. Unlike ported speakers they can also be equalized to extend their useful bass range. This is because below resonance they fall smoothly at only 12db per octave. Their harmonic distortion at 30 hz is around 5% or less. (Ken Kantor recently reported he measured 2% on Audiokarma.) They are rated to handle 150 watts RMS and tests in the 1970s showed they could handle peak impulse power over 1kw with damage. In a live versus recorded test of the original version AR1W in the mid 1950s they impressed audio engineers of the New York Audio League (later called AES) when playing against an Aolean Skinner pipe organ at Riverside Church in Manhattan.

The size of the enclosure is not related to bass capability in the way you think. In this design a small enclosure is required because the speaker's restoring force is largely derived from differences in air pressure between the space in the room and the space within the sealed cabinet. If the enclosure is too large, the pressure difference won't build up sufficiently. This contrasts to other designs including infinite baffle sealed designs which rely on the mechanical restoring force of the driver itself to restore the cone to its neutral position.

I'm not so sure if I agree with your sentiments about them being hard to drive. They do present a lower impedance load than a lot of other speakers, but difficult to drive, hmm, I reserve that comment for speakers like Infinity Kappa 9s or Apoogee Divas which are truly hard to drive because of the very low impedance they present.

Thank you for that tidbit of information on the design, that's interesting. I still wonder if a better and larger cabinet could suck more performance out of these drivers, but I'm not about to experiment.

@JKent, haha, I knew that comment would ruffle a few feathers. But, it's how I honestly view these speakers. Keep in mind that high fidelity means true to the original, which to me means being as close to the original performance as possible (IE, accurate, natural, take your pick). I found it interesting that AR called these speakers uncolored, because I find them colored. Colored in a great way, though, and it's nice to have something that just makes music sound good as opposed to sounding accurate.

[ar_pro]

Irving M. "Bud" Fried, who knew a little bit about the design of your IMF Monitors, as late as 1971 considered the AR-3a to be the best American speaker ever built, bar none.

I would have loved to have learned his opinion of the AR-9, which is more reasonably in the KEF 107 or IMF Monitor's weight class; but has no need of the active equalization used in the 107.

Although the AR-3a doesn't present absurdly low impedance or reactive loads like some of the "less-than-real-world" designs, Kent is correct in stating that the 3a isn't the easiest loudspeaker to drive - that is, you will not hear its best with less than robust amplification.

A couple of hundred well-regulated watts makes all of the difference, even at moderate listening levels - this has forever been true of the top AR designs.

To be fair in any evaluation of the AR-3a, it should have its authentic tweeters; otherwise, you'd be dealing with a modified design.

Also, don't confuse the 3a with some little British monitor, perched atop lead-filled stands in the middle of the room - it's a bookshelf loudspeaker, originally designed to be placed against a wall - this is something that gives present-day audiophiles the willies, but it's nonetheless true.

[canuckaudioguy]

Irving M. "Bud" Fried, who knew a little bit about the design of your IMF Monitors, as late as 1971 considered the AR-3a to be the best American speaker ever built, bar none.

I would have loved to have learned his opinion of the AR-9, which is more reasonably in the KEF 107 or IMF Monitor's weight class; but has no need of the active equalization used in the 107.

Although the AR-3a doesn't present absurdly low impedance or reactive loads like some of the "less-than-real-world" designs, Kent is correct in stating that the 3a isn't the easiest loudspeaker to drive - that is, you will not hear its best with less than robust amplification.

A couple of hundred well-regulated watts makes all of the difference, even at moderate listening levels - this has forever been true of the top AR designs.

To be fair in any evaluation of the AR-3a, it should have its authentic tweeters; otherwise, you'd be dealing with a modified design.

Also, don't confuse the 3a with some little British monitor, perched atop lead-filled stands in the middle of the room - it's a bookshelf loudspeaker, originally designed to be placed against a wall - this is something that gives present-day audiophiles the willies, but it's nonetheless true.

Hmm, we'll see, I have more experimentation to do with regards to the AR 3a and amplification. I have a Sansui AU-555a which I plan to use with these ARs. I disagree that speakers might respond better to more wattage - when the AR-3 was originally introduced, such high power wasn't available. Same with the AR 3a in 1967, so, I still disagree with that sentiment. I think what really matters is the quality of the amplifier and its topology as opposed to how much total power it can produce. For example, I imagine a NAD 3020 (which is a high current design, which to me would be more important) would give some pretty damn fine results with the AR 3a. And tube watts - there's a whole foray to explore there. In short, I'm not sold on "total wattage". I think more in terms of current and quality of the overall amplifier.

As an example, I have run a 6.5 watt SET tube amplifier on my very inefficient IMFs. Anyone would say to me, "That's the total opposite of what those speakers want!" but you know what? It sounded really good, engaging, and pleasant. I couldn't crank them loud but they could get loud enough to a point where I would enjoy the sound just fine. My experiences have taught me there is more than meets the eye when it comes to amplifiers, and I don't think this is a well explored topic on most hi-fi forums. Designing speakers and designing amplifiers are two entirely different beasts, something I don't even pretend to know much about. I just go by what I hear.

One thing I want to make clear. I'm not trying to stomp on the AR 3a. I realize you all have a lot of pride in these speakers, however like I said above, I am just trying to be perfectly honest on what I think of their sound. I don't think the fact they have HiVi tweeters is truly detracting from their sound, I think the old AR 3a tweeter is just that, old. Modern tweeters are built better these days. And besides, most of what you hear is midrange in a speaker since that is where your ear is the most sensitive. So, again, even if mine are modified, I don't think they are falling short of the AR 3a experience. Especially with how they are sounding now and how happy I personally am with them. Will I at some point try the original? Certainly, but I have a strong feeling I will prefer the modern tweeter.

Again, I'm just going to say this one last time, I am not trying to say the AR 3a is an inferior speaker. I think its a fine product. However, its age shows. This is what I'm trying to say. I've heard some folks exclaim "This is the best speaker ever made" and this simply is not true. Like I said, I am sharing my own experience with these speakers and you can take it as simply that, and I prefaced this with saying that they have the HiVi tweeters, so you can simply read what I am writing based on that. Am I getting the full AR 3a experience? Maybe not. But I don't think I am so far off that I don't get what these speakers are about. Besides, is all the work Roy and others have put into making the HiVi work with the AR 3a for nothing? I don't think so.

Edit: With regards to the AR 9 and the Kefs/IMFs, all I can say is I have heard from two other owners who have had both the AR 9 and 107s, side by side, and both have exclaimed the Kefs were the superior speaker in just about every regard. Let's not forget though the price point of both speakers put them in two different categories. The Kefs were around $5k new, which is quite a bit more than what a set of AR 9s would go for, so not exactly a fair comparison in my opinion.

[Steve F]

CAG-

As an experienced AR owner/listener and rabid AR historian, I thought your characterizations of the 3a's sound were pretty much spot on. I can read between the lines well enough to know that your use of the term "mid-fi" was done in a good-natured kind of way, to raise a few hackles. I'm sure it did, but we can all give and take a few fun barbs.

AR's intentions back in the day were always "accuracy" and "uncolored reproduction," but the 3a was well-known for its particular very non-neutral personality: strong, clean deep bass, a slightly 'woody' or 'nasal' midrange, and silky-smooth but slightly reticent highs. It was an accurate and a colored speaker even back then, at the same time.

The 3a never was offensive or irritating, and its smoothness and wide dispersion made it a very listenable speaker that "fit" into the typical domestic living room quite nicely. Those traits hold up well even to today and fed with a modern clean signal, they still sound very nice, as you've discovered.

I happen to agree with you regard ing the quality of amplification needed for the 3a vs. the arbitrary number of "watts." The AR Amplifier sounded quite good with them (60 wpc @ 4 ohms) and myself and my friends/cousins had great experiences with 3a's in the 70's driving them with other high-quality integrated amps of the day, like the Kenwood KA-7002, the Sansui AU-999 (I think that was the number), etc. Never more than 70-ish wpc, but good watts.

Steve F

[canuckaudioguy]

CAG-

As an experienced AR owner/listener and rabid AR historian, I thought your characterizations of the 3a's sound were pretty much spot on. I can read between the lines well enough to know that your use of the term "mid-fi" was done in a good-natured kind of way, to raise a few hackles. I'm sure it did, but we can all give and take a few fun barbs.

AR's intentions back in the day were always "accuracy" and "uncolored reproduction," but the 3a was well-known for its particular very non-neutral personality: strong, clean deep bass, a slightly 'woody' or 'nasal' midrange, and silky-smooth but slightly reticent highs. It was an accurate and a colored speaker even back then, at the same time.

The 3a never was offensive or irritating, and its smoothness and wide dispersion made it a very listenable speaker that "fit" into the typical domestic living room quite nicely. Those traits hold up well even to today and fed with a modern clean signal, they still sound very nice, as you've discovered.

I happen to agree with you regard ing the quality of amplification needed for the 3a vs. the arbitrary number of "watts." The AR Amplifier sounded quite good with them (60 wpc @ 4 ohms) and myself and my friends/cousins had great experiences with 3a's in the 70's driving them with other high-quality integrated amps of the day, like the Kenwood KA-7002, the Sansui AU-999 (I think that was the number), etc. Never more than 70-ish wpc, but good watts.

Steve F

Thanks Steve. Your assessment of my assessment is, spot on.

I really did not mean to try and say these are poor speakers by any means. Every speaker has unique characteristics and strengths and weaknesses. I think what the AR 3a set out to accomplish, was accomplished. In other words, a well executed design. Every speaker has compromises of course, and the AR 3a is not without them, but they were chosen well which ends up resulting in what the AR 3a is all about. It was a tough choice to use the terminology "mid-fi" because I'm sure to many that means these are sub-par speakers, but I was more or less just trying to say that these are not "true to the original", which like I mentioned above would mean hi-fi. They do present a very realistic image and sound stage, but I have never been convinced while listening to them that I am "there". What they do, though, is bring soul and magic to all kinds of music. The higher you move up the chain, typically the more revealing and "hi-fi" speakers can get. Eventually it gets to a point where you might just avoid certain recordings altogether because they simply do not sound enjoyable. Not with the AR 3a - they are very "rounded" and make just about anything sound great and pleasing.

I hope that clears up a bit of what I meant when I said mid-fi.

When my Sansui arrives, I will certainly be sure to let you all know how it sounds. I have currently tried an LXI AM-4004 (a dual mono, 100 WPC @ 8 ohms, 4ohm stable amplifier), and a Marantz MM7025 (140 WPC @ 8 ohms, stable at 4 ohms) and both produced pretty good results, however the Marantz is so far the best. We'll see what the 25 WPC, 4ohm stable AU-555a can produce. I have used that same Sansui on my IMFs and found the results to be excellent, so I am expecting it to be excellent with the AR 3a. In fact, I am expecting there to be quite a synergy between the two based on my previous experience with it.

Like you mentioned Steve, AR produced an amplifier for the AR-3 that was a mere 60 watts per channel. I think more wattage would only be truly necessary if you wanted to play the speakers to their limitations, and that to me would really only matter if you are in a larger room where you would want higher SPL. However, above 60 WPC, you are only increasing by roughly +3dB SPL by going up to 120 WPC. Not much of an increase there if you ask me, and like you say, it's quality watts as opposed to total. Quality over quantity.

Jeffrey