Should the AR-5 have been a 12" Speaker?

[Steve F]

The AR-1x was actually the replacement for the AR-1, once the Altec 755 8-inch drivers became unavailable. Look in the 1969 full-line catalog, the catalog that has the 3a, 3 and 1x--the 1x doesn't have a "plate covering the AR-3's tweeter hole." There was a one-off AR-1x that used the 3 1/2-inch driver (2ax mid/4 tweeter) with the fiberglass and metal mesh screen, but the 'normal" 1x used the 4x's 2 1/2-inch driver.

The 1x was dull and ponderous and would have been absolutely slaughtered by the Large Advent at retail.

As for the 12" AR-5 not surviving its first party night, it would have been no better or worse than the 3a or 2ax in that regard.

As for factory profit margin, the $168 price that I calculated is what the 12" AR-5 would have needed to sell at for it to have a normal margin. The AR-1x was ridiculously over-priced and follows no coherent cost-to-retail structure. They kept the price essentially the same as the original AR-1, yet the 2 1/2-inch driver cost a fraction of what that expensive Altec driver cost. Disregard the 1x, from all standpoints.

Again, look at the new 2ax: the 12" woofer was $20 more retail than the 2ax's 10-inch woofer, so that's $10 more wholesale. The slightly larger, beefier cabinet with 3a-type internal bracing and 12" woofer machine screw mounting would be $10 wholesale more (tops!) than the 2ax cabinet. No fancy 3a-style picture-frame molding on this one, ok?

So, $10 (woofer) + $10 (cabinet) wholesale = $20 wholesale over the 2ax, which is + $40 retail over the 2ax. $128 (2ax) + $40= $168 for the 12" AR-5. Full margin to AR. Just as rugged or delicate as the 2ax or 3a. But $168 - 20% at retail = $134 ea. at retail and that's one heckuva nice speaker for a smidge more than the Advent or 2ax.

I rest my case.

Steve F.

[frankmarsi]

4 hours ago, owlsplace said:

The case of the disappearing post ???

At any rate, the AR-5 should not have had a 12" woofer because it would have adversely affected AR's bottom line. This is a case of "bean-counters" rule not whether the speaker was a scientific plausibility.

I was reminded of this yesterday when I cued up a Dire Straits album on the AR-3a/58 combo. An AR-5 with 12" woofer would not have survived its first party night without blown drivers which would have required warranty service, etc. Hate to be a party-pooper but ...

Just ask Frank -- I venture to guess he has blown more Classic-era drivers than anyone else here ...

My "party-animal" friends during the 70s bought JBL Century 100's. I bought the AR-5's. This is why AR's market share disappeared.

Roger

5-16-17

 

And to think I trusted you 'owlsplace' and here you have almost slighted my sterling reputation of blowing speakers right here on ‘CSP’. No, really folks just kidding and actually your remark is almost like a feather in my cap, in what you’re referring to.

I have to admit that I have blown-out many AR drivers but, that in of itself means I’m having a good time because I’m hearing the AR speaker’s performance at realistic volume levels. And anyone who has owned AR-LST's and big power amps will easily attest to the fact that these speakers enjoy being fed high power and they don't come alive until one turns up the volume. And although there will some detractors, I don't believe anyone can appreciate that until they've experienced it first hand.

No wimpy or casual sitting back and retiring with some Port and a good cigar here.

No siree Bob, and you too owlsplace, I’m actually approximating almost live listening levels of music that have vigor, force and present a powerful performance as the artist has intended it. Whether it be classical, rock or jazz.

But, this is all done within reason and certainly isn't the way some folks might perceive while not really knowing because as I've stated here years ago; LST's don't get louder, their sound simply becomes bigger  with a simple upturn of the volume control.

However, some little things have changed lately in that I have tuned my system to a degree that I don’t actually experience blown drivers any longer and by the self-imposed reality check that I want my equipment to last.

You’d like to ask why? Well, I tell you why Norton.

It’s because the input sources have improved greatly as my vinyl set-up has been tweaked to near perfection.

Careful set-up of all variables and parameters of vinyl playing have been tuned by adjusting every possible tone arm and phono cartridge adjustment to output sound without distortion, therefore enabling excellent sound.

In fact my vinyl signal is so clean, it’s the best my system has ever sounded.

And, if you recall the components I use, you have to ask yourself; how good can it possibly sound? Ah, that’s for me to know and you to imagine as it has taken years to fully assemble all that I have now.

FM

[genek]

22 minutes ago, Steve F said:

The 1x was dull and ponderous and would have been absolutely slaughtered by the Large Advent at retail.

Having never been impressed by the highs of even the AR-1 with the Altec driver, I can see how that would be the case. However, what I had in mind for the 70s was something more along the lines of the AR-8 with the 12" woofer and one of the later AR tweeters. Or maybe AR never had a tweeter that would have made it work.

[Aadams]

2 hours ago, Steve F said:

 

So, $10 (woofer) + $10 (cabinet) wholesale = $20 wholesale over the 2ax, which is + $40 retail over the 2ax. $128 (2ax) + $40= $168 for the 12" AR-5. Full margin to AR. Just as rugged or delicate as the 2ax or 3a. But $168 - 20% at retail = $134 ea. at retail and that's one heckuva nice speaker for a smidge more than the Advent or 2ax.

I rest my case.

Steve F.

Does this mean dealers would not drill holes in the AR5-P or turn the pots to full decrease? Based on what you have stated previously there were other issues. The dealers would still have had financial incentive to steer malleable buyers to other brands even if AR had made it possible to sell a superior product in every respect at the same price, that is so long as the dealer was expected to eat the discount.

Adams

[ra.ra]

About the AR-1x, genek is certainly correct that it was often produced with a blank-off plate in the tweeter hole of an AR-3 or 3a cabinet, and SteveF is also correct that the tweeter from the AR-4 and AR-4x was each used in alternate versions of this rare speaker model. Second pic attached suggests to me that this model was first cobbled together to make use of AR-1 cabinets that had already begun to be prepped for the Altec driver before the stock ran out.

[Steve F]

The 1x was a direct extension/replacement for the AR-1 with the Altec driver, especially a way to fix them under warranty. I've seen internal AR documentation to that effect. The other 1x variants shown here with the 2 1/2 and 3 1/2-inch drivers in offset positions with tweeter holes blocked off are obviously "targets of opportunity" as I've pointed out before: A way to keep the factory busy when a scheduled 3 or 3a run was interrupted or canceled for one of several possible real-world reasons.

Re The dealers still disparaging an AR-5 'P'--sure. But we can only look at one variable at a time in any experiment. In this one, the variable is the existing 10-inch AR-5. Replace it with a stronger 12" AR-5 and what would happen? That's the only variable we can control or evaluate. Would it have been a stronger product and out-sold the "real" AR-5? I say yes, by far.

As for a "better" AR-1x---yes, it would have been possible, but not in the 1968-70 timeframe we're looking at here. In 1976, there was the 10-inch 2-way AR-14, which used a 1" dome tweeter that crossed over at 1300 Hz. You could have done that w/ a 12" woofer, since 1300Hz is lower than 1400 (the 3 1/2-inch x-o point) and therefore even better for the 12-inch woofer. The AR-14 already used the 11's cabinet, so there would be no cabinet up-charge, only the 10-to-12-inch woofer up-charge. Like I've said, the difference there is $10 wholesale ($20 retail), so add $20 to the AR-14 ($140) and the 12-inch 2-way with the 1" dome tweeter would have been $160 ea. Go to town--price it at $175 or 180 ea. Nice speaker and incomparably more salable than the ridiculous $225 ea. 10-inch 3-way AR-12 (another sales and marketing flop).

A 12-inch AR-14 "P" in that beautiful ADD cabinet, with that gutsy AR 12-inch bass and the smooth mid-highs of that 1" dome (early on, it was a Peerless; later on, it was AR-built. Both were excellent sounding units)? I'd take that in a heartbeat and I bet a few hundred thousand other people would have too. AR consistently misjudged the appeal of their 12-inch bass and created overly-expensive 10-inch units that just didn't sell worth a d*mn. Past the 2ax price point, no one wanted an AR 10-inch woofer. The LST-2 should also have been a 12-inch unit, but with 2 mids and three tweeters. I've also done that cost analysis and the 12-inch LST-2 "P" would have easily hit $400 like the 10-inch version did. Expensive AR 10-inchers: 5, 12, LST-2 = flop, flop, flop. People wanted that 12-inch bass in an expensive AR speaker.

Steve F.

[Aadams]

"People wanted that 12-inch bass in an expensive AR speaker."

Steve F

1. Don't you mean inexpensive?  

2. In retrospect It is a wonder that AR management could not see the logic in a 2 way 12 inch AR14 to appeal to the bass hungry value shopper.  Considering  EPI was cranking out multi baffle 8 inch 2 ways  and Advent was still making it on the NLA it does seem like a miss.

3. Question for anyone who knows the answer.  Woodworking aside and considering the cabinets are the same volume.  What if an AR11 Woofer was dropped into an AR14 cabinet  w/ 14 tweeter and crossover.  How well would it work?  What would be the effort to make it work well? 

Adams

 

[Steve F]

No, I meant expensive. Once an AR speaker passed the mid-price region (2ax) and entered into the higher price points, people expected 12-inch bass performance. They were not happy or satisfied with 10-inch bass in the upper price points. 2ax and 4x/6 bass was fine as long as the asking price was no more than $100-120 ea. If it was more expensive than that, then AR 10-inch models simply did not sell well at all.

The 10-inch (12 and 14) ADD models did in fact use the 12-inch (11 and 10π) cabinets. The AR-11's 12-in woofer w the 14's 1-inch tweeter is exactly what I already addressed above. It would have been great. Please re-read that.

Steve F.

[Aadams]

45 minutes ago, Steve F said:

No, I meant expensive. Once an AR speaker passed the mid-price region (2ax) and entered into the higher price points, people expected 12-inch bass performance. They were not happy or satisfied with 10-inch bass in the upper price points. 2ax and 4x/6 bass was fine as long as the asking price was no more than $100-120 ea. If it was more expensive than that, then AR 10-inch models simply did not sell well at all.

The 10-inch (12 and 14) ADD models did in fact use the 12-inch (11 and 10π) cabinets. The AR-11's 12-in woofer w the 14's 1-inch tweeter is exactly what I already addressed above. It would have been great. Please re-read that.

Steve F.

Ok I think you were saying for that kind of money people expected extended bass.

Re the re-read advice.  I already knew the cabs were the same.  My question was: Without regard to aesthetics and mechanical issues, is the 12 inch woofer a direct drop in replacement for the 10" with no crossover mods?

Adams

 

[Steve F]

Ok I think you were saying for that kind of money people expected extended bass.

Yes, exactly.

I don't recall seeing the 14's x-o schematic, but historically, AR's 2-way x-o's were pretty simple: a cap on the tweeter, maybe a choke on the woofer, a resistor if it had a level control. Not too much else. The 14 was probably like that. A 12-inch "14-P" would probably be very similar in layout, but the actual component values may have differed a small bit from the 10-inch 14. Nothing earth shattering. I'm not going to repeat my prior dissertation, but the AR 12-inch woofer going up to 1300 or 1400Hz in the real world would have been just fine and dandy. A 12-inch 2-way ADD with the 1-inch dome crossing over at 1300-ish would have been one heckuva speaker. Especially for $180 ea. compared to that sales dog of the AR-12 at $225 ea.

Steve F.

[Aadams]

 

27 minutes ago, Steve F said:

A 12-inch 2-way ADD with the 1-inch dome crossing over at 1300-ish would have been one heckuva speaker. Especially for $180 ea. compared to that sales dog of the AR-12 at $225 ea.

I have a pair of 14s.  They are very smooth and well balanced, better than OLAs through their common response range.  I don't use them because I am accustomed to 12 inch sound but I would consider moding them if I had a plan to follow.  The crossovers look relatively simple and the woodworking would not be much of a challenge. 

[Aadams]

I have done a cursory study on installing a 12inch woofer into an AR 14 cabinet.   It can't be done correctly with all of the best tools and skill sets available.  AR put the tweeter so low in the cab that cutting for the 12 inch woofer frame would either hit the tweeter port or be so close it would weaken the baffle.  It is wood, so of course it could be made to accommodate re-positioning the tweeter but it almost certainly would retain a Frankenstein aspect and not be worth the effort.  It might make sense in Mad Max world but we are not there yet.

[Martin]

AR did offer an answer to the Advent Loudspeaker: the AR 8. It disappeared pretty quickly however. 

[tysontom]

On 5/17/2017 at 11:44 AM, Steve F said:

Ok I think you were saying for that kind of money people expected extended bass.

Yes, exactly.

I don't recall seeing the 14's x-o schematic, but historically, AR's 2-way x-o's were pretty simple: a cap on the tweeter, maybe a choke on the woofer, a resistor if it had a level control. Not too much else. The 14 was probably like that. A 12-inch "14-P" would probably be very similar in layout, but the actual component values may have differed a small bit from the 10-inch 14. Nothing earth shattering. I'm not going to repeat my prior dissertation, but the AR 12-inch woofer going up to 1300 or 1400Hz in the real world would have been just fine and dandy. A 12-inch 2-way ADD with the 1-inch dome crossing over at 1300-ish would have been one heckuva speaker. Especially for $180 ea. compared to that sales dog of the AR-12 at $225 ea.

Steve F.

I tend to agree with Steve on his assertion that AR missed the mark by not making a "12-inch 2-way ADD" speaker to compete with the Advent.  Done properly, it might have been marketed at a comparable price to the Advent without taking from the AR-3a.  The AR-5 and AR-2ax would have suffered, however, insofar as they were 3-way speakers. 

The vinyl-clad, 2-way, 10-inch AR-8, "The first accurate speaker for rock music," as it was billed, arrived in 1974 after AR had moved to Norwood, and it was designed to compete in the Advent segment.  It was offered only in walnut-grained vinyl finish and was priced at $119.00.  It was a stop-gap design to fill in until AR could bring out a newer ADD 2-way design—the AR-14—to compete with Advent.  Ironically it was too little, too late, as the Advent's popularity, too, had begun to fade a bit by 1974.  The AR-8 had relatively good reviews in High Fidelity and some other magazines, but it was lacking in 1) strong deep bass and 2) adequate output in the lower midrange and treble.  It also lacked the relatively smooth and natural output of the Advent, though that is the subject of much debate.  

The AR-8 came around the time Acoustic Research was moving operations from Cambridge to Norwood, and it also marked the transition from the "Old Guard" (traditional AR folks) to the "New Turks" (the Teledyne people who were forming the Advanced Development Division products).  Relatively few AR-8s were sold, and it was in any case discontinued around end of 1975 yet offered concurrently with other "classic" AR speakers (3a, 5, 2ax, 6, 4xa, 7, etc.) as the new ADD products, AR-10Pi, AR-11 and AR-MST/1 were being rolled out in March of that year.  By 1976, none of the classic speakers was being offered as standard products—only on close-out specials—but by this time AR's ADD had the AR-10Pi, AR-11, AR-12, AR-16 and AR-14 and AR-MST.

The 2-way AR-14 arrived in 1976, a month after the AR-12, and it was a bit more sophisticated than the AR-8 (and more so than Steve's crossover characterization: the 14 had a 12dB/octave LCR crossover with a 2.3 mH choke, 1.0 Ohm resistor and 16 MFD components across the woofer [the resistor for woofer damping in the larger cabinet] and a 5 Ohm resistor, 20 MFD capacitor, 0.2 mH and 0.46 mH choke on the Decrease position, with 0.2 mH out in the Normal position).  This crossover was nearly identical to that of the AR-16, the ADD 8-inch 2-way.  The 14 had the "AR" version of the 1-inch Peerless tweeter (Peerless had QC issues).  It did use the larger AR-11-sized cabinet and significant tweaking to lower the resonance slightly, but it still lacked the bass power of the Advent's 43 Hz system resonance.  The AR-14 came in around 52 Hz.  Better, though still higher than the Advent system.

Side-by-side, as mentioned previously by others, the AR-14 was a better-sounding speaker than the Advent, but it still lacked the bass punch of it, and the 14 was more expensive at $160.00 in 1976.  So, the AR-14 sold well during this short period, as Teledyne AR began to move on to new designs in the 1977 and 1978 period, and the AR-14 was dropped after perhaps two years of production.  There was an intense period of study and reflection at AR prior to the introduction of the AR-14, and many tests and comparisons were made between it and The Advent Loudspeaker.  The feeling among AR engineers was that the woofer was a problem in the AR-14 when compared with the Advent, but otherwise, the 14 was vastly superior to the Advent.  Dozens of combinations were tried before finalizing the AR-14, using the  AR-2ax 10-inch woofer (with the ferrite magnet).

What (IMO) was needed was not the AR-12-inch woofer in a good two-way speaker, but a new, lower-cost, 10- or 12-inch woofer, close in performance to that of the AR-11 or the Advent.  It would have used a low-resonance cone and 1.5-inch voice coil and cone assembly mounted in the AR-14 cabinet, bringing system resonance to around 45 or 46 Hz, and this woofer (probably similar in construction to the original Advent woofer's parameters) would be comparable to the Advent system in bass output, but slightly less potent than the AR-11 (2-inch voice coil 1210003-0 woofer) in terms of sheer bass output and low distortion—similar to comparing the Advent's deep bass to the AR-11.  Both the Advent and the AR-11 sound nearly the same until the power goes up, then it becomes clear that the AR-11's woofer is capable of greater bass output with lower distortion, but this is not noticeable on normal program material at moderate levels. 

This new AR-14 woofer (which would have adapted to the AR-12 as well) would also have the capability to run up to 1200-1400 Hz crossover without difficulty.  Unfortunately, AR's big 12-inch woofer's moving system and high-loss cone begin to make a mechanical drop-off in on-axis (not just off-axis) response somewhere in the 800-1000 Hz range, and this woofer simply isn't compatible with the higher crossover needed to work well in the 2-way world.  The big 12-inch woofer needs to be crossed over around 500-600 Hz to maintain linear output, and this also proved problematic with retrofit for the AR-3 once the original woofer was discontinued.  The 3700 woofer, with its stiffer cone, was relatively smooth up to around 1 kHz, but nothing above that.

So, a new woofer should have been designed for the AR-14 and AR-12, not just the re-application of the big 12-inch woofer.

—Tom Tyson

[ligs]

The AR92 (xxx-033) seems to have a longer excursion version of AR 2/5 10" woofer. Therefore, AR 92 could be considered as an update of AR5. I just wonder how does it sound(especially the bass) compared to AR 5 and AR 91?

[Aadams]

20 hours ago, tysontom said:

I tend to agree with Steve on his assertion that AR missed the mark by not making a "12-inch 2-way ADD" speaker to compete with the Advent.  Done properly, it might have been marketed at a comparable price to the Advent without taking from the AR-3a.  The AR-5 and AR-2ax would have suffered, however, insofar as they were 3-way speakers. 

The vinyl-clad, 2-way, 10-inch AR-8, "The first accurate speaker for rock music," as it was billed, arrived in 1974 after AR had moved to Norwood, and it was designed to compete in the Advent segment.  It was offered only in walnut-grained vinyl finish and was priced at $119.00.  It was a stop-gap design to fill in until AR could bring out a newer ADD 2-way design—the AR-14—to compete with Advent.  Ironically it was too little, too late, as the Advent's popularity, too, had begun to fade a bit by 1974.  The AR-8 had relatively good reviews in High Fidelity and some other magazines, but it was lacking in 1) strong deep bass and 2) adequate output in the lower midrange and treble.  It also lacked the relatively smooth and natural output of the Advent, though that is the subject of much debate.  

The AR-8 came around the time Acoustic Research was moving operations from Cambridge to Norwood, and it also marked the transition from the "Old Guard" (traditional AR folks) to the "New Turks" (the Teledyne people who were forming the Advanced Development Division products).  Relatively few AR-8s were sold, and it was in any case discontinued around end of 1975 yet offered concurrently with other "classic" AR speakers (3a, 5, 2ax, 6, 4xa, 7, etc.) as the new ADD products, AR-10Pi, AR-11 and AR-MST/1 were being rolled out in March of that year.  By 1976, none of the classic speakers was being offered as standard products—only on close-out specials—but by this time AR's ADD had the AR-10Pi, AR-11, AR-12, AR-16 and AR-14 and AR-MST.

The 2-way AR-14 arrived in 1976, a month after the AR-12, and it was a bit more sophisticated than the AR-8 (and more so than Steve's crossover characterization: the 14 had a 12dB/octave LCR crossover with a 2.3 mH choke, 1.0 Ohm resistor and 16 MFD components across the woofer [the resistor for woofer damping in the larger cabinet] and a 5 Ohm resistor, 20 MFD capacitor, 0.2 mH and 0.46 mH choke on the Decrease position, with 0.2 mH out in the Normal position).  This crossover was nearly identical to that of the AR-16, the ADD 8-inch 2-way.  The 14 had the "AR" version of the 1-inch Peerless tweeter (Peerless had QC issues).  It did use the larger AR-11-sized cabinet and significant tweaking to lower the resonance slightly, but it still lacked the bass power of the Advent's 43 Hz system resonance.  The AR-14 came in around 52 Hz.  Better, though still higher than the Advent system.

Side-by-side, as mentioned previously by others, the AR-14 was a better-sounding speaker than the Advent, but it still lacked the bass punch of it, and the 14 was more expensive at $160.00 in 1976.  So, the AR-14 sold well during this short period, as Teledyne AR began to move on to new designs in the 1977 and 1978 period, and the AR-14 was dropped after perhaps two years of production.  There was an intense period of study and reflection at AR prior to the introduction of the AR-14, and many tests and comparisons were made between it and The Advent Loudspeaker.  The feeling among AR engineers was that the woofer was a problem in the AR-14 when compared with the Advent, but otherwise, the 14 was vastly superior to the Advent.  Dozens of combinations were tried before finalizing the AR-14, using the  AR-2ax 10-inch woofer (with the ferrite magnet).

What (IMO) was needed was not the AR-12-inch woofer in a good two-way speaker, but a new, lower-cost, 10- or 12-inch woofer, close in performance to that of the AR-11 or the Advent.  It would have used a low-resonance cone and 1.5-inch voice coil and cone assembly mounted in the AR-14 cabinet, bringing system resonance to around 45 or 46 Hz, and this woofer (probably similar in construction to the original Advent woofer's parameters) would be comparable to the Advent system in bass output, but slightly less potent than the AR-11 (2-inch voice coil 1210003-0 woofer) in terms of sheer bass output and low distortion—similar to comparing the Advent's deep bass to the AR-11.  Both the Advent and the AR-11 sound nearly the same until the power goes up, then it becomes clear that the AR-11's woofer is capable of greater bass output with lower distortion, but this is not noticeable on normal program material at moderate levels. 

This new AR-14 woofer (which would have adapted to the AR-12 as well) would also have the capability to run up to 1200-1400 Hz crossover without difficulty.  Unfortunately, AR's big 12-inch woofer's moving system and high-loss cone begin to make a mechanical drop-off in on-axis (not just off-axis) response somewhere in the 800-1000 Hz range, and this woofer simply isn't compatible with the higher crossover needed to work well in the 2-way world.  The big 12-inch woofer needs to be crossed over around 500-600 Hz to maintain linear output, and this also proved problematic with retrofit for the AR-3 once the original woofer was discontinued.  The 3700 woofer, with its stiffer cone, was relatively smooth up to around 1 kHz, but nothing above that.

So, a new woofer should have been designed for the AR-14 and AR-12, not just the re-application of the big 12-inch woofer.

—Tom Tyson

All I can say in response is: Beautiful dance on a third rail topic.  

Adams

[Steve F]

This is really diverging into two topics: a 12” AR-5 circa 1968-9 and a 12” AR-14 circa 1976.

 

The 12” AR-5 of 1969 is a done deal, closed case. As the attached pics show conclusively, AR obviously felt perfectly comfortable in taking the 1968 12” woofer well north of 1000Hz (1200 for the 2 ½” cone, 1400Hz for the 3 ½” cone) and offering them as commercially-available systems. Take either one of these systems, add the ¾” dome tweeter and that should have been the AR-5. Remember, we’re talking a 1968-9 introduction, so AR would have been looking at their parts bin from 1967-68 to make a 12” AR-5.  

Again, as I calculated before, the retail upcharge from a 2ax for a 12” woofer and the 3a-type cab with the beefier woofer mounting and extra internal bracing (but sans the 3a fancy-schmancy picture frame molding) would be about $40. 

So the 2ax’s $128 becomes the 12-inch 5’s $168.

Done. Great. I’ll take two pair. Fabulous speaker, four times the sales of the 10-inch AR-5, guaranteed. 

The 1976 beefy-woofer AR-14 to combat the Advent was a different animal altogether. Maybe by then, sure, AR could have done a low-res 10” to reach down to -3dB at 38-40Hz, enough lower than the mid-40’s 2ax to really hang in there with the Advent. Totally agreed—from 50 Hz on up, the AR-14 absolutely mopped the floor with the Advent. I remember in a retail A-B I did in 1976 in a Harvard Square store (Cambridge MA), the 14 made the Advent sound like a honky, over-midrangy mess.

Except for the region below 45-50Hz. There, the Advent kicked the 14’s tail. Take care of that, and you’ve got a huge win. Problem was the actual AR-14 was $140 ea, way above the Advent’s $102/116.

Steve F.

[tysontom]

10 hours ago, Steve F said:

This is really diverging into two topics: a 12” AR-5 circa 1968-9 and a 12” AR-14 circa 1976.

 

The 12” AR-5 of 1969 is a done deal, closed case. As the attached pics show conclusively, AR obviously felt perfectly comfortable in taking the 1968 12” woofer well north of 1000Hz (1200 for the 2 ½” cone, 1400Hz for the 3 ½” cone) and offering them as commercially-available systems. Take either one of these systems, add the ¾” dome tweeter and that should have been the AR-5. Remember, we’re talking a 1968-9 introduction, so AR would have been looking at their parts bin from 1967-68 to make a 12” AR-5.  

Again, as I calculated before, the retail upcharge from a 2ax for a 12” woofer and the 3a-type cab with the beefier woofer mounting and extra internal bracing (but sans the 3a fancy-schmancy picture frame molding) would be about $40. 

So the 2ax’s $128 becomes the 12-inch 5’s $168.

Done. Great. I’ll take two pair. Fabulous speaker, four times the sales of the 10-inch AR-5, guaranteed. 

The 1976 beefy-woofer AR-14 to combat the Advent was a different animal altogether. Maybe by then, sure, AR could have done a low-res 10” to reach down to -3dB at 38-40Hz, enough lower than the mid-40’s 2ax to really hang in there with the Advent. Totally agreed—from 50 Hz on up, the AR-14 absolutely mopped the floor with the Advent. I remember in a retail A-B I did in 1976 in a Harvard Square store (Cambridge MA), the 14 made the Advent sound like a honky, over-midrangy mess.

Except for the region below 45-50Hz. There, the Advent kicked the 14’s tail. Take care of that, and you’ve got a huge win. Problem was the actual AR-14 was $140 ea, way above the Advent’s $102/116.

Steve F.

 

11 hours ago, Steve F said:

This is really diverging into two topics: a 12” AR-5 circa 1968-9 and a 12” AR-14 circa 1976.

 

The 12” AR-5 of 1969 is a done deal, closed case. As the attached pics show conclusively, AR obviously felt perfectly comfortable in taking the 1968 12” woofer well north of 1000Hz (1200 for the 2 ½” cone, 1400Hz for the 3 ½” cone) and offering them as commercially-available systems. Take either one of these systems, add the ¾” dome tweeter and that should have been the AR-5. Remember, we’re talking a 1968-9 introduction, so AR would have been looking at their parts bin from 1967-68 to make a 12” AR-5.  

Again, as I calculated before, the retail upcharge from a 2ax for a 12” woofer and the 3a-type cab with the beefier woofer mounting and extra internal bracing (but sans the 3a fancy-schmancy picture frame molding) would be about $40. 

So the 2ax’s $128 becomes the 12-inch 5’s $168.

Done. Great. I’ll take two pair. Fabulous speaker, four times the sales of the 10-inch AR-5, guaranteed. 

The 1976 beefy-woofer AR-14 to combat the Advent was a different animal altogether. Maybe by then, sure, AR could have done a low-res 10” to reach down to -3dB at 38-40Hz, enough lower than the mid-40’s 2ax to really hang in there with the Advent. Totally agreed—from 50 Hz on up, the AR-14 absolutely mopped the floor with the Advent. I remember in a retail A-B I did in 1976 in a Harvard Square store (Cambridge MA), the 14 made the Advent sound like a honky, over-midrangy mess.

Except for the region below 45-50Hz. There, the Advent kicked the 14’s tail. Take care of that, and you’ve got a huge win. Problem was the actual AR-14 was $140 ea, way above the Advent’s $102/116.

Steve F.

 

>This is really diverging into two topics: a 12” AR-5 circa 1968-9 and a 12” AR-14 circa 1976. [Steve F]

Well, it is about two different AR speakers trying to solve the same problem: how to compete with the Advent Loudspeaker and other low-cost 2-ways.  The AR-8 was the first attempt in 1974; the AR14 was the second try in 1976.  Each was relatively unsuccessful, even though the 14 outsold the AR-8 by a factor of 5 or 10.  The 14 was a good seller, but it just wasn't as strong as AR hoped it would be against the competition, and it wasn't around for long.  Later, AR used the AR-6-like low resonance in their 8-inch two-way speakers, and used the 10-inch in upscale 3-ways just below the 12-inch models. 

Back in the late 1960s and into the early 70s, the three-way AR 10-inch jobs were just too expensive to be competitive with the bare-bones, cheaply built Advent, even though the Advent could easily outshine them.  It's simply that punchy bass that gets everyone's attention.  But long before the Advent came along there were the 3-way AR-2a and AR-2ax; what do you do about that?  Now perhaps by 1968 Roy Allison should have looked at business differently with the AR-5, but he was bent on offering "AR-3a performance" at a lower price point and he wanted the power-response thing more than a third-octave deeper bass.  He vastly underestimated the effect of that last 1/3-octave of bass.  The AR-5 was superior to the Advent in every respect except the deep bass; unfortunately, that last 1/3 octave of bass is what everyone hears in the showroom, not the wide dispersion and flat power response or smooth treble.  The Advent was brighter, too, which works well in a showroom during an A-B comparison.  No contest.  A blow-out.  Advent was a poorer loudspeaker, but one that impressed more on first blush, and a speaker that sold perhaps twenty-times more product than the AR-5.  This we all know: and what's done can't be undone.  It wasn't a great decision to make the AR-5, but Roy Allison was more of a purist than a pragmatic speaker man.  

AR's 10-inch 3-way was a well-established and accepted configuration that sold well (except for the AR-5 which lost sales to the AR-3a).  Adding the big 12-inch woofer to compete with the AR-3 and AR-3a?  Hmmm, that doesn't make too much sense.  You can't force the AR 12-inch woofer into the AR-2ax cabinet, so you would have to add the expense of the AR-3a's heavier, beefier cabinet construction, more hardware, more braces, more crossover components, more expensive driver and so forth.  Besides, all of the AR-2 stuff is 8 ohms, and the 12-inch is 4 ohms, so you would have to redesign the voice coil to make it compatible.  Now we have two 12-inch woofers with the big magnet.  Why have an AR-2ax with the AR-3a woofer and the middling AR-2ax midrange?  A 12-inch AR-2ax is just going to cut into the AR-3a sales, and the AR-2ax had sold over two-hundred thousand loudspeakers heretofore and continued to sell well right up to the end.  That theory just doesn't fly well with me.  There are definitely different viewpoints, and it's easy to look back with hindsight, so we'll never know for sure.   

Again, AR's back was against the wall, and what should have happened was to develop a low-cost, Advent-like low-resonance 10-inch woofer that could be used in the AR14 and the new 3-way AR12, great low bass but not quite a match for the AR-3a's bass power and low distortion.  Keep the AR14 priced low (it ranged around $160 for much of its life), and it could have been a contender; yet as it happened, the Advent was dying about this time as well.  Andy Petite (Kotsatos) went in and redesigned the original "The Advent Loudspeaker" with a new, better tweeter and a new woofer with less bass, and the system suffered greatly.  Sales plummeted from the earliest days of the Henry Kloss design.  It was better in some ways (tweeter), but cheaper and less potent in other ways.  AR's marketing people did see this, and I suspect that they decided not to go after that market with all-new designs.  Instead, they took the AR14 and tweaked it to the maximum—better, but still not quite like it should have been.

>The 12” AR-5 of 1969 is a done deal, closed case. As the attached pics show conclusively, AR obviously felt perfectly comfortable in taking the 1968 12” woofer well north of 1000Hz (1200 for the 2 ½” cone, 1400Hz for the 3 ½” cone) and offering them as commercially-available systems. Take either one of these systems, add the ¾” dome tweeter and that should have been the AR-5. Remember, we’re talking a 1968-9 introduction, so AR would have been looking at their parts bin from 1967-68 to make a 12” AR-5. [Steve F] 

Wrong, sir.  AR wasn't happy or comfortable with this AR-1x combination, but they had no choice because of the end of the 755A, its high cost and so forth, which you mentioned in your post.  It was workable with the AR-3 #3700 woofer, but not the ferrite AR-3a woofer which, by the time of the AR-5, was beginning to enter the pipeline.  The 3.5 or 2.5-inch drivers just would not perform down below 1kHz, but the AR-3 Alnico woofer could be pushed to 1 kHz fairly smoothly on axis.  The new ferrite woofer (see my response graph of a 200003-0 woofer in my AR-1W cabinet  is falling apart—on axis—above 500-600 Hz, let alone 1 kHz.

So, there's no easy answer to this conundrum.  AR lost a lot of sales to the Advent, for sure, but not much could have been done at the time without a brand-new competitor.

—Tom Tyson

[Aadams]

 

Thanks

Good ad hoc history.  It took 40 years but there is finally a cost effective Advent killer; Add a pair of decent speaker stand/sub-woofers to your 5,2ax,14  or 12.

Adams

[Steve F]

People continue to conflate these two issues: a 1969 3-way and a 1976 Advent-killer 2-way.

Remember, when the AR-5 was conceived (1967) and introduced (1968-9), there was no Advent. Let’s stick with that topic first.

The 5 was a miscalculation. People didn’t want AR-3a-like midrange smoothness, they wanted AR-3a-like bass. That’s why the 5 flopped.

The 2ax was a very nice mid-priced speaker. The step-up should have been to more bass. Cost-wise, it would have been easy. Use the same 3a woofer and 3 ½-in mid with ¾-in tweeter, with 2ax crossover topology.

I’ve been through this now 4 times, but apparently 5 times is necessary, so here we go again:

The 12-in woofer was $20 more retail vs. the 10-in on AR’s own parts price list. $20 retail is $10 wholesale.

To go from the 2ax cabinet to the slightly larger 3a cabinet—with its more extensive internal bracing and beefier woofer mounting (machine screws, etc.) would be a $10 upcharge from the cabinet vendor—TOPS! I know cabinet pricing first hand. I spent decades at Bose, BA and Atlantic Tech. I dealt with many of the same cabinet vendors who supplied AR. Don’t tell me about cabinet pricing—I know all about it, first hand. And remember, this cab would not have the 3a-type 1-in picture-frame molding.

$20 wholesale cost more = $40 retail more. The 2ax’s $128 retail becomes the new AR-5’s $168 retail.

(4 ohm and 8 ohm drivers are a non-issue. The 2ax’s 3 ½-in mid was a CTS driver. It’s as easy as telling CTS, “Hey, we want a batch of those 3 ½-inchers as 4-ohm units, ok?” There would be no upcharge and no delay. Again, I’ve spec’d this kind of thing and dealt with speaker vendors a million times. This is how it works. They want your continued business. CTS would’ve fallen over themselves to keep AR happy in the late 1960’s. Don’t try to tell me. Please.)

Another thing that people not involved in product development do is that they evaluate things based on the time of introduction. That is wrong, just wrong. It’s an amateur’s mistake. A brand-new product takes 2 years, easy. A re-hashed product based on existing parts still takes 12 to 18 months. So the actual AR-5 was conceived on the “napkin at lunch,” so to speak in 1967, right when the 3a was being intro’d. You can see it now: It’s late 1967. Roy and Ed are eating lunch together. The 3a has just come out. Roy says to Ed, “Hey Ed, we ought to do a 10” version of the 3a.” He sketches it out. Ed nods his head. (Was Ed even still there? If not him, someone nodded their head to Roy’s napkin sketch.)

The instructive, relevant thing to remember is that when this conversation took place in late 1967—and that’s when it happened, no later than that!—there was no ferrite 12" woofer. There was only the cloth/alnico 12" woofer, and that was fine and dandy for use with the 3 ½-inch driver. 

As far as worrying about what effect the “12-in 2ax” would have had on the 3a, again, I’ll repeat myself, because I’ve lived this, done this, been head Marketing and Product Development Guy at American speaker companies for many, many years. People who’ve never been head of marketing and product development—especially if they’ve never worked in the U.S. speaker industry—simply don’t have the credibility or experience to say otherwise. So here it is again. If I need to repeat this 40 more times, I will post it 40 more times:

Never, ever worry about the possible cannibalistic effect a strong new product will have on an existing product.

Never.

You competition is already gunning for you with everything they have.  That great model that sits at the top of your line, the one that has received all those great reviews, Best Buy awards, Editor’s Choice, Product of the Year? You know, that one? The one that you got for your brother-in-law for half price and he was so happy you thought he was going to kiss you? (Yuck.) That one?

Its days are numbered. It has a fatal disease called The Competition. It’s already dead, you just don’t know it yet. You think it’s a reliable annuity, returning a guaranteed profit, unending, year after year. Wrong. It’s like a collapsing stock from a company about to go belly-up.

If you have a potential great new product that may take sales away from some existing product, do not hesitate or delay in bringing it out—because your competition is about to come out with theirs and it’s better to “lose” sales to yourself than someone else. Keep the dollars in your own house. Once you lose the sales to an outside entity, it’s 10 times harder to get them back and reclaim your market share. Keep people—both dealers and end customers—buying your product. Once they sample someone else’s charms, they may not only like their products better, they may also like the other company’s terms and repair policies and salespeople and exchange policies and freight polices and a lot of other things better too. 

Then, you’re lost and you’re sitting there like yesterday’s newspaper, wondering what the heck just happened.

 

The 1968-69 step-up from the 2ax should have been a 12” version of the 2ax, not a 10” version of the 3a.

Steve F.

[Aadams]

Everything that has been said sounds accurate and plausible.  The only thing left is to point out the irony of AR making its  name on extended bass and then not being able to deliver the goods when challenged.  I don't think AR owners and principle stakeholders were really hungry in 1967.  They were probably thinking about how to cash out and perhaps had become complacent, navel gazing, contemplating the aesthetic beauty of power response.  Suddenly the market was awash with no-longer cash-strapped, bass-hungry, rock fans and it was too late.

 

[ra.ra]

The circular discussions within this thread have been the source of mild bemusement (particularly now that a dozen speaker models have been mentioned), but my comments will pertain only to the original topic - - - AR-5: "watered down" AR-3a?.... or "beefed up" AR-2ax? 

The latest post from Tom was simply great on several points, and with respect to his thoughts on this phantom "AR-5", I'd have to agree that this notion does not make much sense. As much as I like the performance of the "ugly duckling" 3-1/2" CTS driver in my AR-4's and 2ax's, Tom's description of this driver as "middling" is accurate and appropriate when compared to the more sophisticated dome midrange drivers that AR was already using and continuing to develop. Why take your best woofer (12") and best tweeter (3/4" dome) and combine them with a midrange driver (despite the impedance differences) that does not match the others in level of quality? The price point argument for filling a marketing niche appears to be the ultimate objective, but this idea certainly does not sound like the makings of a sales success story.

Re: pricing analysis, this $168 guesstimate seems to me to be equal parts folly and pipe dream. Along with the undervalued $10 upcharge to a 3a cabinet, not factored in are: x-o components for larger woofer, increased volume of stuffing, and the need for an all-new grille size once the solid wood moulding has been stripped from the 3a cabinet - - what happened to parts-bin engineering? Instead of a cost-up from the 2ax ($128), this calculation should be developed as a cost-down from the 3a ($250, 1971 retail), and even with the significant unit cost difference between mid drivers (1977 parts list - 3a 1-1/2" mid @$55 vs. 2ax 3-1/2" mid @ $14.50), one would be hard-pressed to deliver this AR-5 remake to market at much under $200 per speaker retail.

From the CSP library, in a 1975 letter from AR Norwood to audio enthusiast Steve F, the first paragraph clearly spells out that the cost of a piece of merchandise is largely dictated by the price of the components used in it. This statement was in defense of the AR-3a then selling for $295 list - -  dial it back a few years to 1971 and $250 list, and that's where the cost estimates for this phantom AR-5 should begin. This cost calculation should be a reductive assessment from the 3a rather than an additive process to the 2ax. 

So here we now have a fervent prognosticated pitch proclaiming the huge market success of the "AR-5" if only it had used the larger woofer and cabinet (sans face trim) from the TOTL AR-3a (and mid from 2ax). Curiously, from the same letter noted above, it appears that 42 years ago this same marketeer had been pitching the idea of a speaker model using a smaller woofer - - in this case, a 10" version of the AR-10pi. Not to spin this thread off into yet another direction, but am just wondering how many of those speakers would have sold amid the increasingly competitive market of the mid 70's? The point has been made here that big bad bass was the primary selling point for the larger "bookshelf" speakers of that era, so really?..... a proposal for a 10" woofer in a three-way with a complicated and expensive crossover? 

 

[Steve F]

This really is a circular argument. I know of what I speak, based on my decades' of experience in development/engineering/vendor relations/manufacturing/marketing in the American speaker market. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, of course, but some opinions are more informed and credible than others. Spirited discussion about this great hobby is fun and entertaining. I enjoy this. Believe what you want. The 10" AR-5 was a factual flop. You can defend it and justify it all day long vs. a proposed "12-inch 2ax" if you like.

The "12-inch 2ax" cost numbers work, whether you look at upcharging from a 2ax or doing the analysis of the 10-inch 5 w dome m/dome t and its complicated x-o vs the "12-inch" 5 w larger 3a-sized cab, cone m/dome t and simpler '2ax-ish' x-o. It comes to around $170 either way, nowhere near $200. New grille and stuffing differential are nothing. Less than nothing. Not even a blip on the radar to consider. I know those kind of details because I've lived and planned and managed and scheduled through them in the American speaker market, but you are free to believe anything you like.

The real AR-5 was a sales/marketplace flop, flop, flop. Historical fact. Take from that what you wish. The 12-inch 2ax would've outsold it by 10 times the distance to the Moon and back. But we'll never know, unfortunately.

Steve F.

P.S.--In 1975, I asked AR IF they were coming out with a 10-inch version of the 10π. I wasn't recommending it or "pitching" it. I thought then, as I do now, that it would have been a dumb move, a complete flop. You know, like the AR-5.

[der]

What do you all think of the AR LST2?  That seemed like a huge waste of time to me as well. 

der

[Steve F]

The LST-2 could've and should've been a 12-inch speaker also, and I have posted a very detailed cost analysis and proposed driver/design layout for that as well in past posts. It could have easily hit $400 ea. (like the actual LST-2), would have sold like crazy and been a huge success. We all would've bought them.

But I'm in enough hot water over this "12-inch 2ax" thing, so I'm going to leave that one alone for the time being. But trust me.......

Steve