Goodbye, AR-9

[Steve F]

If I ever had to replace my 9's.....

http://www.legacyaudio.com/products/view/signature-se/

These might be the ones: Dual 10's in a sealed enclosure (very few sealed systems these days), 4-way, with x-o's very similar to the 9/90. 7" mid-bass compared to the 9/90's 8", and AMT UMR and T drivers instead of AR's domes. Not side/Allison-mounted, but in the real world, that doesn't matter that much to me. The 3a always sounded fine and that wasn't Allison-oriented.

I know Bill Duddleston (Legacy's founder/head designer) has said on many occasions that he thought the 9 was a spectacular design. Legacys always get terrific reviews for natural, smooth sound. Not like the Thiels, which if you read between the lines are a bit metallic and unforgiving. The thing about Legacy that I like the most is that they always have great bass, with lots of woofer radiating area. Duddleston is a big believer in that. I also like the cabinetry/cosmetics of the Legacys better than B&W (one of the other brands I'd consider).

I'm not running out and buying anything tomorrow, mind you, but these look like the top contender. I should probably consider buying them while Legacy themselves are still in business. I don't see them as being around for too much longer, given the diminishing state and changing demogrphics of the high-end audio market. The worst thing would be for Legacy to go OOB, and have my 9's FF dry up and suitable NOS UMR and tweeter drivers become unavailable or prohibitively expensive. Then I'd be nowhere.

Steve F.

[soundminded]

Faced with the same problem I'd build my own. I've considered converting AR9 to a direct/reflecting speaker by adding three LMRs and three UMRs per channel facing backwards and upwards (I've got a zillion 3/8" polydomes for tweeters) but I decided this would be a major project redesigning AR9 literally from the ground up. The direct reflecting principle results in the same kind of sound field a planar dipole large surface array equivalent produces although I require vertical dispersion as well. Combining ideas from AR9, LST, and 901 in a single package with my own ideas thrown in to boot. A retirement project.

[DavidR]

I'd maybe consider these> http://www.pmc-speakers.com/products/professional/passive/mb2s-xbd

but I doubt it.

[Mach3]

My take on the Maggie versus the Nine goes in almost inverse order.

In the '70s I was an ardent AR fan - AR-2ax and eventually an AR-10pi. All driven by various Marantz receivers. Tasty sound. Flash forward to the early '90s - after passing through a series of unsatisifying speakers - Altec Lansing, JBL, - I was introduced to the sound of the Magneplanar - and I was taken with it. The sound was all encompassing - it seemed to be so life-like that I ended up buying a set of 3.3Rs. Driving them with tube amps (seriously underpowered) but in that era the solid-state amps were typically gritty and harsh. I was in sonic Nirvana - just very happy.

I was also smitten with their appearance - tall, elegant and just really classy - at least to my eye. Eventually I moved up to a set of MG-20s - got more bass - but not exactly any slam. But the notes were there - you just had to listen for them. This covered 12 years, from about '94 through '06. All the time listening to Maggies and thinking that such was sonic bliss. I even moved up to a solid state amp (HCA-2 from PS Audio - which eventually went up in flames - but such is another story). Even with the 200+ watts of the HCA-2 I was still way underpowered for such a speaker - to get a Maggie to come to life you need at the minimum about 300 or 400 watts - of good, clean, musical solid state power (tubes need not apply for Maggie duty).

All through this period I was slightly dissastisfied with the Maggie sound - I attributed my uneasiness to the lack of bass. I looked around for AR but came to realize that the "old AR" had vanished - to be replaced by speakers that bore no relation to that wonderful sound I had listened to through the '70s.

Then one day I happened to listen to a friend's rig - featuring some really nice two way box speakers. And then in a flash I realized what I wasn't getting from the vaunted Maggie sound; NO DYNAMICS, and NO SOLID BASS (oh the notes were played but rather faintly). I sold my MG-20s in a week and went on a search for a speaker that had dynamics and bass. Eventually landing on a set of AR-9 that were in need of some serious TLC. Rebuilt the crossovers with all film caps, added adequate wire (the factory wire is not up to the job) and made a few other mods to the crossover (removing the 2500 uF "beer can" cap - as with modern amplifiers such is NOT needed - and removing same dramatically increases the bass response).

What I am saying is that a Maggie - any model - creates a very seductive sound - immense sound stages (though incapable of imaging), rather nice tonality (as the membrane tends to smooth over everything) and a sound field that is just incredibly enjoyable - a Maggie fills a room with sound. But the price you pay for those attributes are rather high; you need enormous amplifier power, you will never get any decent bass from the thing (the 3.x series is dead around 50 Hz), there are NO DYNAMICS with a Maggie - everything gets homogenized to one volume and they really do not image at all (sound stage is great, placement is non-existent) and the tonality, while very smooth, is actually quite colored.

You will be happy with your Maggie - very happy - for many years - and then one day you will hear a capable dynamic speaker (or a VERY CAPABLE DYNAMIC SPEAKER LIKE AN AR-9) and those Maggies will be gone in a flash. Recommendation? Keep the Nines in a closet or spare room. You will find your way back to them.

[JKent]

I don't want to add to the controversy. Pro is in musical heaven with his Maggies and that's all that matters for him. YMMV. That's why HoJo had so many flavors

But here's a question: I've heard the "no bass" argument with regard to planar, ribbon and electrostatic speakers. Why not get a honkin' big subwoofer?

Full disclosure: I've been a sub/sat fan ever since the idea was first bandied about, IIRC. Back in the '80s I bought a VMPS subwoofer kit to augment my main speakers, Allison Fours. It's a pretty big box with a 12" woofer and a 15" passive sub.Used with a Richter Scale electronic xo and a bridged Hafler amp it really kicked!

Recently I cut it open and installed a plate amp. It reinforced the lowest octaves for my AR-2ax's and when I swapped those out for 3a's I kept the sub.

Now with the 3a's the sub gets very little exercise. I think the xo point is at 50Hz. But I digress.

If the Maggies are fine as-is, great. But if they need help at the bottom, why not a sub?

-Kent

[Mach3]

My take on the addition of a subwoofer to any planar style speaker (stat or magneto-dynamic);

It seems like it should work and "complete" the speaker on the cheap. But it never does - the result is always lumpy, not coherent and the bass stands out like a light house beacon. The problem, I think, is that a planar, due to its extremely low driver mass is a very low Q device. This means that the drivers (sheets of mylar) do not ring at all - they are very well controlled. Whereas a large sub, even one muscled up with an enormous amplifier is typically a high Q device, i.e. it rings slightly (or greatly depending on the quality of the components). Any decent sub, with a 12" or > driver is pushing a huge amount of mass - and that mass resists acceleration (and deceleration as well). Consequently when integrating a sub with a Maggie type you are trying to get a very low Q set of drivers to blend with a medium to high Q device (the sub itself). It never sounds "right".

Then there is the problem with getting a point source (dynamic sub) to blend with a line source (Maggie) - just doesn't work very well. The way each device launches its wave into the room is dramatically - and obviously very different. The sub stands out - and it doesn't sound like an integrated speaker - it sounds like two different speakers playing somewhat together - but not coherently.

Now putting a sub with a dynamic speaker such as an AR-2ax - that should work extremely well - for an AR-2ax is a dynamic, medium Q device that launches its wave as a point source. I tried to get my MG-3.3 to work with a Velodyne (high quality sub) - it never worked well at all. For one thing the MG-3.3 was starting to roll off at about 80 Hz (manufacturers simply lie about the bass response of their speakers - all of them) - and the Velodyne could not reasonably reach that high. With the MG-20 the sub was a somewhat better blend since the 20 went down a little lower before nosediving - but still the two units were not coherent - in any shape, manner or form.

I wish that a sub and a Maggie did work - but they just don't (ask Jonathan Valin at TAS about his experience - he claims it is impossible to integrate a sub and ANY PLANAR speaker).

Best bet with a Maggie is to get a set of their DWM panels (like a slice of the bass section of an MG-20) - these integrate well (vertical launch and a line source with low Q) and bring up the response in the 40 Hz to 200 Hz region - but they are $750 per unit. So add $1500 to your "Cheap Maggie" - then add another $4,000 for some decent amplifier (used Pass is highly recommended) and that "cheap Maggie"? Now it is a $15000 speaker system - and the room clutter just went way up while the WAF went exponentially DOWN.

Sorry - to my way of hearing a Maggie is seductive but ultimately just doesn't cut it - even if you can solve the bass problem - you are still left with a speaker that just doesn't do much in the way of dynamics - and REAL MUSIC is VERY DYNAMIC. Rock, opera, symphonic, jazz - live music simply JUMPS. Maggie types do not "jump" - they spray sound everywhere and smooth the rough edges off of recordings - and they are incredibly seductive with their sound. But not very transparent, not much imaging - incredible sound stage - and very smooth. But not my cup of tea.

[ar_pro]

Mach3 -

The AR-9s are gone, gone, gone (please re-read the penultimate sentence in the first post), as "Goodbye AR-9" is what was literally meant by the title of this topic.

My son still has one pair of 9's that we rebuilt a few years back (it used to be two pairs, but he recently sold a set when he moved); and as I mentioned, during our turntable shopping, the AR-9 wasn't outperformed in every aspect by any one loudspeaker until you got to the $50K territory - not bad for a 40 year-old design built to a price - a value that should certainly be a motivating factor when choosing what to listen to.

That said, while I've done all the describing I'm going to do regarding the 3.7i in our home, your particular past experience with a planar-magnetic design & suitable amplification seems more a function of leaping before you looked - a not-atypical event among audiophiles, and unfortunately, one that is not-infrequently repeated.

Kent -

One of the effects of our initial listening experience with the 3.7i was a dramatically sudden freedom from the need to to "compartmentalize" aspects of its performance; with the musical event overiding the Hi-Fi event, if you will.

Again, this did not occur with any of the other systems that we heard, wherein one began to think about "the bass", "the highs", "imaging", blah, blah, blah.

[soundminded]

For all the accolades written about AR9, a speaker I've had experience with now for 30 years, out of the box played flat like all AR and other speakers I found it unsatisfactory for accomplishing what for me is the primary goal of a loudspeaker system, reproducing the tonality of acoustic instruments accurately. I experimented with a graphic equalizer for years and it didn't help. Like other AR speakers its main problem seemed to be its treble. Only after re-engineering high frequency propagation with additional tweeters combined with equalization could I get the timbre right. However, compared to some real instruments such as the Steinway piano at the opposite end of the room the AR9s still sounds small until you're a good 15 to 20 feet back. The problem there is its inability to radiate midrange sounds in many directions, it beams most of it forward. Re-engineering that would take a major effort and frankly it's not worth it to me. Whoever argued that Bose 901 made a piano sound like it's 8 feet wide and therefore bad has evidently never seen or heard a real concert grand piano. Steinway D is 8'-9". Baldwin SD-10 is 9'-6", Bosendorfer Imperial Grand is probably even larger and they sound large. That said as I've posted, 901 has other problems and also had to be re-engineered.

M3.7's inability to reproduce the lowest octave means that it likely would not be able to reproduce the following instruments to my satisfaction; piano, tuba, string bass, bass drum, kettle drum, pipe organ. These very low frequency sounds give weight, power, and impact to music. Those with other priorities might find them perfectly fine and likeable.

[DavidR]

......................and as I mentioned, during our turntable shopping, the AR-9 wasn't outperformed in every aspect by any one loudspeaker until you got to the $50K territory - not bad for a 40 year-old design built to a price - a value that.....................................................................

Hi AR-Pro

Out of sheer curiosity I am wondering which speaker system @$50K was the one that bested the AR9?

Your reply would be much appreciated.

[ar_pro]

Sheer curiosity is usually a pointless exercise, David, but if it helps, the Wilson Alexia beat the AR-9 in every pi**ing-contest metric that so many here seem wed to.

I've come to regret bringing this whole thing up, as virtually everything that I've tried to convey regarding what for us was a unique experience has been so completely misunderstood, willfully misinterpreted, or erroneously & simplistically re-defined by all but one or two posters, that any further attempt to clarify would almost certainly be of no value.

To the one or two who made an effort to understand: thanks!

Adieu, boys.

[soundminded]

A Thorens Turntable with an SME arm is an excellent performer. I considered buying one myself when I shopped for my first serious turntable. Ironically it was the sales rep for these products who convinced me to buy Empire instead and now I have two of them. However, had I bought the Thorens/SME combination I'm certain I'd have been perfectly happy with them and I'd still have them and use them. One problem you won't have is acoustic feedback. AR9 and even Bose 901 as I've used them have bass so powerful, so much low frequency gain that a turntable is out of the question in the room where the AR9s live and I can easily get acoustic feedback if I'm not careful from Bose 901 too. Empire 698 has a suspended subchassis like the AR turntable but even so, much more isolation would be needed, say an optical table with air pistons.

[DavidR]

Sheer curiosity is usually a pointless exercise, David, but if it helps, the Wilson Alexia beat the AR-9 in every pi**ing-contest metric that so many here seem wed to.

I've come to regret bringing this whole thing up, as virtually everything that I've tried to convey regarding what for us was a unique experience has been so completely misunderstood, willfully misinterpreted, or erroneously & simplistically re-defined by all but one or two posters, that any further attempt to clarify would almost certainly be of no value.

To the one or two who made an effort to understand: thanks!

Adieu, boys.

I'm curious by nature. Perhaps 'curiosity' was the wrong word, however, the desire to know more is how I've learned to improve my system. Now that I'm retired I found that I want to rekindle my interest in audio that I had many, many years ago. Other things got in the way then.

I've been a planted tank hobbyist for 49 years now and I'm hanging it up. The one difference I've noticed about online forums for the aquarium hobby and audio is eye-opening and difficult to understand. Certainly both offer help to people in need of answers; both have people who have a passion - BUT its different. The passion for audio runs along the lines of everyone has an opinion and they are all correct vs suggestions on techniques and equipment. Rarely do you encounter 'absolute passion' for a particular piece of equipment in fish keeping. People in audio tend to stand steadfastly by their gear. This isn't good, bad or indifferent - it's just the way it is.

I have found the members here to be very helpful in getting people up and going with their speakers. I tend to think they are all engineers in the audio business. Their expertise is unique. Go to AudioKarma and you will run into the everyday audio hobbyist who will/can be rude and obtrusive. Why? I certainly don't know. Do you? I was rudely treated on a Carver audio forum for owning Bose 901's. I'm sure many of the bashers had never heard a pair but no decent audiophile would ever admit to the 901 being a decent speaker. What I'm getting at is we all have different tastes and 'ears'. Why is it such a big deal to people that you fell in love with the Maggies. Perhaps they were taken by surprise. I know my AR90s and the associated gear is far superior in all respects than the 901's used in my HT system but I do find I like to listen to them for 2 channel music now and then despite the muffled sound with speech and some musical passages. They can reproduce some music that is very pleasing. To me its something about a full range driver or whatever. Why should anyone care or say I'm wrong in what I find pleasing. Again, I dunno….

It was inevitable some audio company would come along and make a speaker better than the AR9 in all aspects. Hell, AR could have but from what I gather they didn't want to. I believe it was Ken Kantor who stated he could have made the MGC's bass better than the 9s but was stopped. It would have been sacrilege. One would think a company like Acoustic Research would have wanted to design and build a speaker better than the AR9.

I have a high-end audio dealer in town who has the Magnepan line. I'm going for a listen. The Wilson's I had seen in an article on the top audio speakers ever made. They had the Alexandria aka Blue rock-em-sock-em robot speakers in the list. Nearest dealer is in southern NH.

Enjoy your new speakers!

[Steve F]

ar_pro,

I hope you still peruse these pages and that the "Adieu, boys" was figurative, not literal.

An audiophile business associate/friend of mine had Maggies about 30 years ago and we had dinner together and went over his house afterwards to listen. They were entralling and seductive. I loved them. They were just as you indicated-- freedom from the need to to "compartmentalize."

A very good way to characterize it.

In the end, I think I liked the "Compartmentalization" on some deep psychological level--that will take me far too long--too many pages-- to sort out. I think all "audiophiles" like the self-affirming aspect of "compartmentalization"--there is a self-gratification/emotionally-legitimizing aspect to the audio hobby that is separate from the musical enjoyment of it.

It's not just that Miles Davis' Kind of Blue is such great music; it's also that it sounds so good on the system that you chose and assembled with one's oh-so-great skill and listening abilities that no one else could do. That's what audiophiles like and take so-called pride in.

AR9s might be the ultimate "audiophile" speakers. I think the Maggies might be so musically natural that they transport you past the "audiophile" realm and thus relieve the individual of all that "pressure." At some point, I think all of us want to stop fighting the fight, stop trying to "prove" something.

Something like that. Tough to put into words, but I think you know what I mean.

Steve F.

[soundminded]

DavidR, I've had even more experience (by 15 years) with original Bose 901 than I've had with AR9. Bose 901 has some remarkable capabilities, it was a radical departure in concept. The nature of its flaws in execution are different from those of most other speakers making them unacceptable to audiophiles. They are correctable however. The engineering fixing them was much harder and took much longer than fixing AR9, in fact it was the toughest I've ever encountered. Two tries, the second successful attempt taking four years. I can say this categorically. With several re-engineered pairs (at least 4 pairs) and sufficient amplifier power (at least 1000 wpc) original Bose 901 will equal AR9s bass and outperform it in every other respect. It has several significant advantages over conventional loudspeakers that others cannot be corrected for. BTW, if I wasn't satisfied with a planar type loudspeaker I wouldn't know where to begin trying to fix it. I haven't heard Magneplanars except once a long time ago. Most planar speakers have among other defects narrow beaming of high frequencies which for me is not acceptable. Critically listening to electrostatic speakers like Martin Logan Summit and Soundlabs 8' tall curved panels I found serious FR flaws especially with the MLs. I cannot deny their clarity though.

[DavidR]

Hi Soundminded,

I've read many of your posts on 901s and your 'fix' and I am intrigued to say the least.

Hopefully some day you will share this info with the rest of us.

I originally had series2. They were late production model and actually had foam surrounds.

The foam rotted and Bose gave me an option. Replace all 18 drivers for 'X' amount of dollars

(no longer can remember the exact cost) OR turn them in and we will sell you a pair of new series6

for $350. All because I was the original owner and had filled out and sent in my warrantee card.

The $350 was approx $100 less than replacing the drivers and add in the inefficiency/power requirements

of the series2 - it was a no brainer for me. Since reading your posts I've kept an eye open for a nice pair of series1 in the hopes that you some day share your intellectual knowledge.

All I can say is the better the equipment used the better they sound.

[soundminded]

DavidR, mine were original with cloth surrounds. The surrounds were fine but the putty had hardened and cracked. The enclosures were no longer air tight. Bose said the speakers were unrepairable but since I was the original owner they offered me a trade in for half off on a Series VI. I declined because I felt the ported design is inferior and compromises any possibility of rescuing the deepest bass. I caulked my with GE silicone and they've been air tight ever since. However, they require an additional low bass boost making power requirements enormous. One pair isn't sufficient because while they have the radiating area of a single 14" driver, their Xmax is low. The low bass cut and the upper bass hump are easily correctable with equalization. The real challenge was the treble. IMO 901 hasn't got the top octave at all. Most other speakers don't have the bottom octave. As I've said in the past I solved that problem with 6 tweeters per channel where about 95% of the radiation is indirect. They cross over around 9 kHz with a 6db per octave slope. The Bose equalizer is usually set at one notch below flat to reduce a lower treble peak. The speaker must be equalized for each recording. Four 2 channel equalizers (one is the 901 equalizer) are used. With that done correctly, the speaker retains all of the advantages of 901 and none of its disadvantages. It can easily be made to clip my 138 wpc Marantz receiver, the most powerful amplifier I own. Replacing it with a more powerful amplifier without adding more 901 systems would be a wasted effort as the improvement would only be 3db which IMO is too marginal. The resulting image BTW is the equivalent of a wrap around flat panel speaker.

[ar_pro]

Tough to put into words, but I think you know what I mean.

Steve F.

Definitely tough to put into words, Steve.

I've noticed that recordings that haven't been subjected to extensive studio processing (lots of EQ/effects/multitracking) show the most marked difference; and there are a few live recordings that I thought I knew well (Keith Jarrett's Köln Concert is a prime example), that have revealed surprising novelties.