AR 9

[Guest ARgonaut]

I recently purchased a pair of AR 9 speakers. They are the LS models which are different from the AR 9s shown in photos. Does anyone know anything about them? I would appreciate any help you could give me.

[Guest dogmeninreno]

>I recently purchased a pair of AR 9 speakers. They are the

>LS models which are different from the AR 9s shown in photos.

>Does anyone know anything about them? I would appreciate any

>help you could give me.

Hello, Which photos? Dale in Reno.....

[Guest Bret]

Go here:

http://www.arsenal.net/speakers/ar/Unclassic/Unclassic.htm

Download the first brochure (ZIP file)

It's very hard to read (impossible?) but these are the LS models.

Bret

[soundminded]

As nobody else has answered this, here's what I remember from 20 years ago;

As I recall, this successor to the Teledyne AR9 had a forward firing 12" woofer at the bottom, a 10" woofer firing downward into what AR referred to as a "thunder chamber" which allowed sound to emerge from the front, and an 8" lower midrange, upper midrange and tweeter in a similar configuration to the AR9s. However, I believe all of the drivers were different. This model probably appeared around 1983, 1984.

[Guest ARgonaut]

I found the speakers in the Classic Speaker brochures section although, like you said, it's almost impossible to read. Thanks for your help.

[Steve F]

The AR-9 was introduced in 1978 after a relatively protracted development period. Remember, AR’s model numbering scheme in those days was chronologically sequential, so when the AR-8 was introduced in 1974 and then the 10pi and 11 followed in 1975, it was apparent to sharp-eyed AR-watchers at the time that they had "missed one." In 1976, the 12 and 14 followed (no model 13, for the obvious American-superstitious reasons, just like there is never a 13th floor in a high-rise building in the US). So we were all waiting for the mysterious, secret model "9" to make its appearance.

It finally happened, 2 years later, and boy! What a speaker! So many innovations -- the acoustic blanket, the vertical-alignment of the mid and hi frequency drivers (with a complete, industry-first technical explanation of why it was important to do it that way), the side-firing woofers, a la Allison’s research into the effects of room boundaries on low-frequency power radiation, and more. This was a ground-breaking product that genuinely advanced the state of the art of music reproduction in the home. It was a high water mark for the company, and like the LST in 1972, the 9 sold extremely well despite its high price.

The accolades rolled in form all the magazines and critics. As good and well-respected as the 11 and 10pi were, they didn’t bring AR back to the top spot in the industry’s and the critic’s view. The 9 did, and AR was back, all the way.

Not content to rest on their laurels, AR set about refining and improving the 9. One of the slight defficiencies of the original 9 was that, while the horizontal dispersion was extremely wide and very uniform (thanks to their vertical alignment), AR noted that the 9’s VERTICAL dispersion was somewhat irregular. Vertical dispersion is not as important in a real-world listening room as horizontal dispersion (listeners can easily be scattered 5 or 6 feet horizontally about the listening area, but their ears will always be within 5 or 6 inches of each others’, assuming a normal height chair or sofa and people within a foot in height), but nonetheless, it can affect the near-field tonal quality when standing or sitting, and irregular dispersion will always have some effect on far-field power response.

The 9LS addressed this when introduced in 1982. Their solution with the 9LS was the Dual Dome driver, whereby the 1 1/2" and 3/4" drivers were mounted very close together and driven by the same magnet structure. Having the two drivers that close (within about an inch or so) allowed them to avoid the usual side-by-side response irregularities of conventionally-mounted drivers. Mounting the drivers in this manner meant that the 9LS’s dispersion was consistent and uniform in both the vertical and horizontal planes, yielding a somewhat smoother, more refined sound.

The LS also went from side-mounted 12’s to a forward-facing 12" and an internally mounted 10", outputting through a slot just above the 12" driver. AR claimed this arrangement made the speaker less placement sensitive, while still compensating for the "Allison Dip" effect.

The critical response to the LS was just as enthusiastic as the original 9, maybe even more so. High Fidelity Magazine said the 9LS had "…perhaps the deepest, cleanest, firmest, most natural reproduction we have ever heard." Quite a speaker.

Steve F.

[Guest Sean]

That was a great and informative response Steve. Thanks for contributing that info.

I do have a few questions for you and a comment.

First of all, what year were the 9LS's made available to the public? You mention a time frame for the other speakers, but none for the LS. I'm thinking it was early 1983, but i could be wrong.

I'm also wondering why AR dropped the "Acoustic Blanket" when they went to the LS design. Any ideas? I know that Dunlavy held the patent on this and had threatened to take AR to court for patent infringement, but don't know if that was a factor or not. Dunlavy later mentioned that had they gone to court, he could not have done battle with the attorney's that AR could afford. Bare in mind that this was back in the late 70's, long before Dunlavy had established himself or his company as being "contendors" or "financially stable".

As far as my comment goes, one can see GREAT similarities between the LS series of AR's and those of early Legacy designs. This is especially true of the Legacy 1's, which are quite similar to the AR 98LS's in design concept and layout. I will only say that Dudleston should have learned how to copy better because the imitations are just that i.e. a lower performing, more expensive attempt at duplication. The Legacy 1's were later revised and called the Legacy Classic's. Sean

>

[Steve F]

>First of all, what year were the 9LS's made available to the

>public? You mention a time frame for the other speakers, but

>none for the LS. I'm thinking it was early 1983, but i could

>be wrong.

As I mentioned above, "The 9LS addressed this when introduced in 1982."

>I'm also wondering why AR dropped the "Acoustic Blanket" when

>they went to the LS design. Any ideas?

AR didn't offer a really clear, comprehensive reason for dropping the Blanket. They did say that improvements to the 9LS's grille frame had lessened the diffraction, rendering the Blanket unnecessary, but that to me was a fairly thin explanation. I think that all of us have to realize that companies like AR, no matter how much we like and admire them, are first and foremost commercial enterprises, intending to make a profit. My strong suspicion is that the Blanket was a marketing convention that had some plausible benefit, but when it became either too expensive to include or too much of a pain to add in the manufacturing process, all of a sudden, there was a "legitimate" reason as to why it was no longer needed.

Steve F.

[Guest Sean]

Sorry for being blind and not seeing that you had posted the year. Either way, thanks for reposting it for us dummies : )

As to the blanket, as mentioned, Dunlavy had the patent on this and may have pressured AR. Given that Dunlavy was the legal owner of such technology, AR may have decided to drop it rather than face a legal battle and have to pay royalties on past designs let alone shell out the funds for newer models too. Sean

>

[Guest monicard]

I have a 1983 vintage set of AR9LS speakers and I also have several factory brochures as well as a reprint of the High Fidelity review from December 1982 and a review of the AR98LS from Hi Fi News and Record Review in January 1983. If anyone is interested, I would be willing to use my flat bed scanner to scan these in and make them available for others. Gary C