AR-2ax tweeter/mid adjustment

[Guest tombowlus]

I recently picked up a pair of AR-2ax's in very good condition off of ebay, and I was wondering what people's thoughts were on where to set the midrange and tweeter adjustments. So far, I have preferred the midrange cranked all the way, and the tweet just slightly backed off from all the way. I have not had much of a chance to really audition these speakers yet, and they are merely hooked up to a "pieces parts" rig in my basement right now (Aiwa cassette deck, Carver C-1 preamp & Adcom GFA-535). Ideally, I know that I should just adjust them to where I think they sound best, but I am curious at to where other people are setting theirs.

Thanks, Tom.

[Guest Bret]

>I am curious at to where other people are setting theirs.<

I have two pair; a pre 1970 pair and a post 1970 pair with very different tweeters and different crossover points.

On both, in carpeted rooms, I prefer the tweeters all the way up. Because the post-1970 pair have considerably more tweeter output I leave the midranges almost all the way up. On the pre-1970 pair I prefer the midranges backed-down a bit. I suppose I'm listening for "balance" but I really hadn't given it much thought.

The two sound dramatically different from each other, as though they are more different than alike. much less share a model number.

Bret

[charger3834]

I also own both versions of the AR-2ax. You can run the tweeters on either model close to the maximum, or even wide open, depending on how "hot" or "mellow" you like the top end. Bret is right, the older model's 1 3/8" tweeter is less efficient than the newer model's 3/4" unit. Both of these drivers are quite inefficient relative to the 3.5" CTS midrange. This is why the "normal" setting on the control pot is so close to wide open.

In contrast, the midrange driver is quite efficient and does not sound very smooth wide open. The "normal" setting on the mid is actually quite retarded in output. Keep in mind that the midrange is not a dedicated "midrange." The actual range that we call the midrange is shared by the woofer and the CTS built mid/tweeter. In the older model, the woofer to mid range crossover occurs at 2000 HZ. In the newer model, this occurs at 1400 HZ. Therefore, if you want smooth power response through the vocal range, the midrange control should be set close to the "normal" position.

[tysontom]

>I also own both versions of the AR-2ax. You can run the

>tweeters on either model close to the maximum, or even wide

>open, depending on how "hot" or "mellow" you like the top end.

>Bret is right, the older model's 1 3/8" tweeter is less

>efficient than the newer model's 3/4" unit. Both of these

>drivers are quite inefficient relative to the 3.5" CTS

>midrange. This is why the "normal" setting on the control pot

>is so close to wide open.

>

>In contrast, the midrange driver is quite efficient and does

>not sound very smooth wide open. The "normal" setting on the

>mid is actually quite retarded in output. Keep in mind that

>the midrange is not a dedicated "midrange." The actual range

>that we call the midrange is shared by the woofer and the CTS

>built mid/tweeter. In the older model, the woofer to mid range

>crossover occurs at 2000 HZ. In the newer model, this occurs

>at 1400 HZ. Therefore, if you want smooth power response

>through the vocal range, the midrange control should be set

>close to the "normal" position.

>

I agree with this assessment entirely. This is also true of most of the other 3-way AR speakers with level controls: the midrange on the "dot," and the tweeter near maximum. This seems to give the most natural overall balance.

--Tom Tyson

[Guest tombowlus]

Thanks, folks! That was just what I was looking for! I really need to get these babies up to my "A rig" upstairs, and try them out on some nice equipment.

Also, FWIW, I did get to briefly A/B my AR-2ax's (which I believe are the older model, but I haven't removed the grills yet) with a pair of Large Advents (vinyl covering). There are definitely some similarities, but the AR's held a definite advantage in midrange reproduction (no surprise - especially since I had the mids cranked on the AR-2ax's), while the Advents had brighter highs (especially when they were "enhanced"). The low end seemed fairly similar, although I didn't really crank them much. I did try the AR-2ax's on some end tables AND the Advents on the floor, and let me tell you this was killer! I may try using them in a stack, just for kicks. In general, though, I preferred the AR's.

Later, Tom.

[Steve F]

This is a great subject, since the 2ax is a favorite of mine. In rooms with normal absorption characterisitcs, the 2ax always sounded best to me with the tweeter all the way up, and the midrange set a little above the mid-point.

This is consistent with the previous entries on this subject, and more importantly, it also coincides with the factual findings of CBS labs in their test results of the new 2ax in High Fidelity magazine: "...the tweeter set to maximum and the midrange set a shade or three below maximum...let the sound blossom out nicely..."

A look at their measured omnidirectional frequency response confirms the 2ax's excellence--a smooth, slightly downward-sloping response, very uniform with no marked peaks or dips, and strong response all the way out past 20kHz.

It was an amazing speaker in its day, and it still sounds great even now.

Steve F.

[Guest abbedd]

I turn the treble pot just slightly down from max and the midrange pot almost all the way down. Thai is on the first version of the 2ax

Abbedd