Uncle Choppy Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Greetings from the lowlands of Arkansas - home of tall grasses, heavy soil and indestructible bugs! I really enjoyed the AR-3a back in the 70s. Now I'm curious about models 11 and 303. What are your thoughts regarding how these three speakers compare with one another. Best wishes. -UC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ra.ra Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Interesting first post, and welcome to CSP. I am not the best person to answer this query, and I certainly don't mean to hijack your thread, but this ensuing discussion might also address the AR-91 and the AR-58s and maybe even the AR-10pi as somewhat comparative three-way 12" speaker models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iso Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Unfortunatelly I can not give you any sound advice... but welcome to this friendly forum anyway. Kimmo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakecat Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Greetings Choppy.....was down in your state last February to grab a classic vehicle and bring back to Ohio. Jonesboro was the town...and tis flat there!..lol. As far as comparing the two......well....like picking two purdy sisters to take out on a date. Both have great reviews and the sound is fantastic on both. The 303 was the latest series to go out and had the most muscle and gets my nod for being slightly better because of the strength but it would totally depend on your listening taste. The 303 is more rare so you would be spending more to get them. The 11 is well liked and I have the 11 woofers and mids installed in a Heathkit version of the 3a cabinet....and love them. But...I like my 303's the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted February 29, 2016 Report Share Posted February 29, 2016 Posted 3 Dec 2008 As I wrote in May of 2007: "The AR-11 was introduced in March of 1975 as part of the first wave of the Advanced Development Division (ADD) product family, along with the 10 Pi and the MST/1. The 11 was essentially a refinement of the basic 3a design—a bookshelf-sized 3-way speaker, utilizing the 3a’s 12-inch woofer and 1 ½” dome midrange. However, the 11 (along with the 10 Pi) employed AR’s first incarnation of the ferro fluid-cooled ¾” dome tweeter. The use of ferro fluid in the tweeter’s voice-coil gap greatly increased the power handling of the tweeter, allowing the crossover to be redesigned with a greater voltage drive to the HF section. This resulted in much greater HF output from the 11 and 10 PI compared to the 3a, and completely resolved the “not enough highs” complaint that was common to the older speakers. Importantly, the 11 retained the smooth, uncolored, low-distortion character of the 3a. The 11’s cosmetics were significantly upgraded as well, although the degree of “improvement” is certainly open to question and remains a matter of personal taste. The ADD products were marketed as a limited-distribution line of goods, where AR was attempting to correct their years of dealer neglect and re-establish a measure of dealer profitability (and hence, dealer loyalty). This strategy was not entirely successful however, as the combination of a decade of ‘dealer-be-dam*ed’ sales/marketing policies coupled with the rapidly-changing 1970’s consumer electronics marketplace meant that AR was not able to reclaim their previous leadership status with the ADD line. Considered solely as a product, however, the AR-11 was a terrific speaker. Many experienced AR aficionados—myself included—feel that the 11 combined the 3a’s best acoustic qualities (great deep bass and smooth, natural, widely-dispersed midrange) in a good-looking, more modern speaker with truly excellent, no-excuses high-frequency response. Highly recommended." [steve F. 12/3/08 comment, continued] I am not specifically aware of any significant engineering upgrades to the 11 during its market life. The drivers may have undergone minor modifications, as production parts often do, because of different parts suppliers, slightly altered production methods, etc. But to my recollection, there was no major, intentional engineering change to the 11 during its product life cycle. The specs never changed (unlike the 3a, which had its mid crossover lowered from 575 to 525 Hz around 1972-ish), and certainly nothing like the 2ax, of which the original version (1964-69) and the 'new' version (1970-1976) were two completely different speakers, except for the model number. My gut feel is that you could have a stereo pair of one brass-logo'd 11 and one black-and-silver plastic logo'd 11, and (assuming they were both operating properly, within AR's production QC spec) never hear anything amiss. Steve F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonnar Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Steve, You know I'm a bit integralist about AR speakers, so I think the AR 3 it's the better speaker AR ever made. In 1975 my father had AR 10Pi, and I still remember my first idea , some brightness around 5 Khz, and the midrange seems to overpower tweeter. Also in the AR 3a the midrange has a very powerful output, but the transition to the tweeter is smoother. Recently I 've heard AR 10Pi well driven by McIntosh C22/275 and I still have the same idea, a little " honkiness " in the midrange. Every time I listen to AR 3 I found the perfect balance, a totally neutral sound, the real sound of music. And, to me, the 1" phenolic tweeter is unsurpassed in smoothness, transparency and extension. Cheers, Adriano Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 I've owned AR3a since 1970 but I've always kind of longed for a pair of 3's. I've only heard 3's once and that was a long time ago and my memory of that has faded substantially. You're a lucky man to have both. der Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonnar Posted March 2, 2016 Report Share Posted March 2, 2016 Yes der, I love 'em both, AR 3a shows better human voices and in fact my wife that loves italian lyrical operas prefers 3a. But You have to listen an acoustic guitar from AR 3, it's unbelievably transparent and realistic, and so if You listen a 12-string guitar, while AR 3a is a little sweeter, AR 3 has some realistic sparkling highs. There is more " air " around the speaker. It a sort of electrostatic kind of sound, but with solid and deep bass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ligs Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 I am reading with interest about the transparency and air regarding AR3. I have a pair of AR3's that the previous owner had laminated 0.25" wood to the sides and 0.75" wood to the top plus 4 casters in the bottom to help move them! I know the woofers are good but mids are damaged and need replacements. Given the difficulties of finding replacement parts, would I get AR3-like sound using the later production AR 1.5" mids and highranges? Looking at the differences of AR 3 and later models AR3 has the simplest crossover with just one reactive component for each driver. I wonder if the simple crossover contributes to the transparency and air to the original AR3 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonnar Posted March 3, 2016 Report Share Posted March 3, 2016 I believe You needs original AR 3 loudspeakers because of its different crossover frequencies, 1000 and 7000 Hz in AR 3, but You can ask RoyC about it, He knows everything about these loudspeakers. Probably what I mean with " more air " is a different balance between frequencies, less mids and more highs. The AR 3 1" phenolic dome tweeter seems to have an infinite extension and transparency, and probably it' s more linear or has a better sensitivity than AR 3a's tweeter. I have two AR 3 pairs, accurately recapped, and all four speakers sounds identically, that particular AR 3 sound , so neutral that You can forget You 're listening to a loudspeaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Choppy Posted March 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2016 Gentlemen, many thanks for the warm welcome to CSP and this forum. I appreciate your interesting comments - well considered and informative. Best wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD70 Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 I'll second all the comments above regarding the AR-3. Mine are from 1960, and they are truly stunning sounding. Glenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve F Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 I’ve had the good fortune of enjoying extended AR-3 listening sessions at Adriano’s (Sonnar’s) house in Rome the last two times I’ve been in Italy, visiting our oldest daughter (who’s lived there for over a decade). Listening/hearing impressions are often influenced by the emotional/psychological circumstances present at the time. Here we were in the beautiful city of Rome, in Adrian’s comfortable, welcoming home, listening to a great selection of classic jazz on beautiful vintage AR speakers. To say that it was a wonderful setting would be the understatement of the year. But the 3’s did sound great, regardless of any favorably-biased pre-dispositions I may have had going in. Look, I’ve worked in the US speaker industry for many decades and have helped conceive, design and voice many speakers over that time span, including some that have gone on to be all-time best sellers. I have a pretty decent idea of how a good speaker is supposed to sound. The 3’s were just flat-out terrific. We didn’t A-B them with anything else (Adriano has 3a’s sitting right there), so in all fairness, there was no comparison to another speaker. But I distinctly remember thinking at the time that they were about as nicely-balanced, relaxed and “musical” as a medium-sized bookshelf speaker could be. As much as I love my 3a’s (I also have 9’s in another room), when I play them—and there are no other speakers in that room to A-B them with—I can clearly hear their colorations: that strange “woody/nasal” tendency to the mid and the slightly too-low level of the tweeter. Doesn’t mean I don’t love the 3a—I do—but I can easily hear their character even without directly comparing them to something else. However, Adriano’s 3’s didn’t “call attention to themselves” the way the 3a can. They were simply relaxed, open, unstrained and natural. And the specs are all “wrong.” You “can’t” take an AR 12-inch woofer up to 1000Hz, right? The woofer is too ‘slow,’ it’ll sound thick and muddled in the midrange. Everyone “knows” that. Hogwash. The 3 is totally devoid of the lower-mid thickness that people accuse the 3a of having. And even though the 3a’s ¾-inch tweeter is the ‘best vintage tweeter ever made,’ the 3 never seemed dull or depressed in the highs, whereas the 3a can. Like I said, maybe it was all due to the enjoyable setting and circumstances of those listening sessions. But I know what I heard, using my own CDs. Steve F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 Interesting Steve. I don't doubt a word of what you said. I myself have never heard a pair of AR3. As an interesting side note. I long ago had a friend in Columbus, Ohio that was very much an audiophile. When I met him he was running 2 pair of AR3a with a massive McIntosh tube amp and preamp. I don't recall the turntable although it might have been a Dual 1019. I believe he was using a Shure cartridge most of the time but he had others. When I first met him and listened to his system I was completely blown away. I had never heard that quality of audio. That listening session (I believe is was early 1970) started my high fidelity journey. This gentlemen was very interested in the latest and I remember him saying that he had just upgraded to AR3a from AR3. A couple of months later I bought my pair of AR3a which remain my main speakers to this day. I would love to hear the AR3 but my chances of doing so are likely slim. EDIT: If, in fact, the AR3 is a better sounding speaker than the 3a, why would a savvy company like Acoustic Research introduce the 3a in the first place? I know both were available for time after the 3a came out but as I recall, the 3a was all that most wanted. Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD70 Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 2 hours ago, der said: Interesting Steve. I don't doubt a word of what you said. I myself have never heard a pair of AR3. As an interesting side note. I long ago had a friend in Columbus, Ohio that was very much an audiophile. When I met him he was running 2 pair of AR3a with a massive McIntosh tube amp and preamp. I don't recall the turntable although it might have been a Dual 1019. I believe he was using a Shure cartridge most of the time but he had others. When I first met him and listened to his system I was completely blown away. I had never heard that quality of audio. That listening session (I believe is was early 1970) started my high fidelity journey. This gentlemen was very interested in the latest and I remember him saying that he had just upgraded to AR3a from AR3. A couple of months later I bought my pair of AR3a which remain my main speakers to this day. I would love to hear the AR3 but my chances of doing so are likely slim. EDIT: If, in fact, the AR3 is a better sounding speaker than the 3a, why would a savvy company like Acoustic Research introduce the 3a in the first place? I know both were available for time after the 3a came out but as I recall, the 3a was all that most wanted. Larry I think because it was "NEW". New designed mids and tweeters, must be better, right? I'm sure AR's Ad agency touted this big time in the campaign. I had the opportunity to A/B 3 & 3A's and preferred my 3's, so did the 3A owner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Posted March 15, 2016 Report Share Posted March 15, 2016 I don't doubt Steve's or anyone else's listening preference. I can't speak from experience because like I stated, I've never heard the 3's. The 3a's were introduced in 1969. I've always been under the impression that AR was still run by engineers (for the most part) during that time frame. Apparently I am wrong because they upgraded their flagship speaker with one that is technically inferior. der Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michiganpat Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 inferior could be a lot of things...the 3 may have been inferior to the 3a from a durability/quality control/warranty standpoint....IIRC I thought I read somewhere those original AR tweets had like a 40-50% scrap rate when being manufactured.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 4 minutes ago, michiganpat said: inferior could be a lot of things...the 3 may have been inferior to the 3a from a durability/quality control/warranty standpoint....IIRC I thought I read somewhere those original AR tweets had like a 40-50% scrap rate when being manufactured.... Yes, that might have been the case. Perhaps, as a young man, I was just enamored with that east coast speaker company and what I considered the purity of their design goals. I never considered that they would introduce a new model that didn't perform quite as well as it's predecessor sonically. der Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonnar Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 AR 3a is not technically inferior to AR 3: mid and highs have better dispersion, the crossover is more accurate. However, technically superior doesn't means sonically superior. I can' t say which one is better, depending by recordings, some are better with one speaker, some with the other speaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidDru Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 Could the 3a not be aging as well as the 3 for some reason? Maybe that old original cloth surround woofer versions of each stand the test of time better? Cabinet construction? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonnar Posted March 16, 2016 Report Share Posted March 16, 2016 No , I don' t believe it. Cabinets are almost identical, and theoretically foam surround has greater compliance than cloth surround. Simply AR 3 are original Villchur's AR , while AR 3a were designed by Roy Allison : everyone has its idea about a loudspeaker. AR 3 and AR 3a sounds different Aldo when new: my father had AR 3 until 1969, then he switched to the new AR 3a , but I remember very often he told me that AR 3 are probably better sounding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakecat Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 12 hours ago, michiganpat said: inferior could be a lot of things...the 3 may have been inferior to the 3a from a durability/quality control/warranty standpoint....IIRC I thought I read somewhere those original AR tweets had like a 40-50% scrap rate when being manufactured.... It was here that you read that but it was the 3a tweeter that has high failure rates. Roy talked of pictures where it showed trash cans full of rejected tweeters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Posted March 17, 2016 Report Share Posted March 17, 2016 True, mine have only lasted 47 years. I guess the ones that made it into a system were really good. Mine still have good output. der Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.