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

[Analogman]

1 hour ago, genek said:

Based on my 40-year career as an engineer (not in the audio business), that's pretty much what Marketing is all about...

You got that right, and in more ways than one

[RoyC]

16 hours ago, Steve F said:

Amazing the lengths people will go to justify the existence of the AR-5, a total sales and marketing flop, flop, flop. Great-sounding speaker. Virtually unsaleable in its day. One shouldn't mistake 2017 collector's value for 1969 salability.

There would not have been "a lot of blown mids." The power/danger a mid is put in is a consequence of the HP filter going to it. The LP section of the woofer in the x-o is its own thing. The 3 1/2" mid could handle the same power in its specific bandpass (for better or worse) in a system with a 10" woofer or with a 12" woofer.

The 2ax was a 10-in + 3 1/2" 2-way speaker (the 2x) with the addition of the "late 60's tweeter added" (as Roy puts it). Simply do the same thing for that 1x that used the 3 1/2-in cone.

Would the mid response at the upper end of the 12" alnico's woofer be a little rough (1000-1400Hz)? Sure, a bit. Worse on paper and in the minds of purists than in the reality of a satisfied customer getting -3dB @ 35Hz bass for $168.

Steve F.

 Steve,

Although I personally like the 5, I for one was not trying to justify its existence...and I do not doubt a cheaper 12 incher would have sold better. That aspect of this topic is obviously your area of expertise. On the other hand I believe you are oversimplifying the technical details of your proposed alternative.

AR already built a version of your proposed speaker. It was called the AR-3. It has an AR dome tweeter and the 1x woofer/simple crossover configuration. The only difference is the much more robust and sensitive AR-3 mid (vs the 2ax mid) with a 24 or 30uf cap on it. If you were to try to make a 2ax mid work with anything approaching that kind of capacitance, and 6db/octave crossover slope, you would surely have response and power handling issues to deal with. If you remove the small .4mh woofer inductor to reduce the need for more capacitance on the tweeter, the woofer enters rough territory. You can't just plop in the12 inch woofer, and expect it to work in the same manner as the AR 10 inch woofer does in the 2ax. The 2ax does not require the 6uf coupled 2ax mid to do nearly as much work as your proposed 12 inch woofer speaker would, and when you start increasing tweeter capacitance or decreasing woofer inductance, things begin going downhill. Additionally, the AR's 4 ohm impedance would not be a positive attribute either...especially against the easier to drive, possibly stacked, Advents.

Today, using lots of duct tape on the mid hole, I built your proposed speaker in an empty AR-3 cabinet and compared it to two iterations of Large Advents and a pair of 2ax's. (In doing so I also realized the walnut version of the Advent would have an aesthetic advantage over a plain jane AR competitor). The results were subjectively more than "a little bit ragged" with any simple 2ax-like combination of capacitance and inductance.

I do not disagree with anything you have said other than the technical aspects of your proposed alternative speaker. AR probably could have come up with a less expensive, successful, 12 inch alternative to the 5, but the devil would have been in the details....and I doubt it would have been comprised of off the shelf 2ax parts. Come over for a visit sometime, and we can build your speaker...and a time machine.

Roy

 

 

[Steve F]

I can’t respond unless I repeat myself and I’m sure everyone’s dreading that. So I’ll keep it brief.

The 12-inch woofer to 3 ½-inch driver x-o was deemed acceptable by AR, enough to have offered it as a real live for-sale commercial system.

I’ve been through the cost analysis 6 times, so 7 is uncalled for. Suffice to say, it would’ve worked just fine at $168.

AR, as I’ve said, misjudged the appeal of their speakers once you got past the mid price region. Above the price of the 2ax, an AR customer wanted AR 12-inch bass.

The amateurish folly of worrying about the “cannibalistic” effect a proposed product might have on an existing product is a rookie mistake, as is judging historical decisions based on the time a product came out. Amateurs always fail to understand or recognize that products take 1 ½-2 years minimum to bring to market, so you have to look 2 years before the product came out to see what the designers/marketing people were thinking and facing. For instance a complex product like the LST might well have taken more than 2 years, but I’d venture to say that no one on this forum ever thinks of the LST in a 1968-69 timeframe. Instead, they think of it as a “1971” speaker, because that’s when it made its public debut.

The market conditions in the mid to late 1960’s were what they were. The realities of running a company’s product planning/development/engineering/marketing/sales/advertising/PR and employee relations are what they are and I did that in the big leagues of the American speaker market for a very long time.

One man’s “roughness” is another person’s “sounds great to me.” Want roughness? Have Tom show you the FR curve of the OLA tweeter that AR ran when they were developing the 14 (called the ‘9’ during development at the very beginning). Rough? The OLA tweeter would have been laughed out of the house if that was an AR tweeter. Advent (Andy K and Henry K) believed that 1/3-octave smoothing was how people interpreted a speaker’s sound, and so smoothed, their tweeter wasn’t really as bad as it looked. How do I know that that’s what Andy K believed? Because he told me, since I worked with him for 11 years.

There are several technical, sales, marketing and company operational aspects to my contention about the “12-inch 2ax” that simply cannot be questioned. Sorry. There are also some ‘gray areas’ where everyone has equal say. As the man said, “You pays your money and you takes your pick.”

I’m done. Differences of opinion are fine. Spirited discussion is invigorating.

Steve F.

[RoyC]

2 minutes ago, Steve F said:

I can’t respond unless I repeat myself and I’m sure everyone’s dreading that. So I’ll keep it brief.

The 12-inch woofer to 3 ½-inch driver x-o was deemed acceptable by AR, enough to have offered it as a real live for-sale commercial system.

I’ve been through the cost analysis 6 times, so 7 is uncalled for. Suffice to say, it would’ve worked just fine at $168.

AR, as I’ve said, misjudged the appeal of their speakers once you got past the mid price region. Above the price of the 2ax, an AR customer wanted AR 12-inch bass.

The amateurish folly of worrying about the “cannibalistic” effect a proposed product might have on an existing product is a rookie mistake, as is judging historical decisions based on the time a product came out. Amateurs always fail to understand or recognize that products take 1 ½-2 years minimum to bring to market, so you have to look 2 years before the product came out to see what the designers/marketing people were thinking and facing. For instance a complex product like the LST might well have taken more than 2 years, but I’d venture to say that no one on this forum ever thinks of the LST in a 1968-69 timeframe. Instead, they think of it as a “1971” speaker, because that’s when it made its public debut.

The market conditions in the mid to late 1960’s were what they were. The realities of running a company’s product planning/development/engineering/marketing/sales/advertising/PR and employee relations are what they are and I did that in the big leagues of the American speaker market for a very long time.

I’m done. Differences of opinion are fine. Spirited discussion is invigorating.

One man’s “roughness” is another person’s “sounds great to me.” Want roughness? Have Tom show you the FR curve of the OLA tweeter that AR ran when they were developing the 14 (called the ‘9’ during development at the very beginning). Rough? The OLA tweeter would have been laughed out of the house if that was an AR tweeter. Advent (Andy K and Henry K) believed that 1/3-octave smoothing was how people interpreted a speaker’s sound, and so smoothed, their tweeter wasn’t really as bad as it looked. How do I know that that’s what Andy K believed? Because he told me, since I worked with him for 11 years.

There are several technical, sales, marketing and company operational aspects to my contention about the “12-inch 2ax” that simply cannot be questioned. Sorry. There are also some ‘gray areas’ where everyone has equal say. As the man said, “You pays your money and you takes your pick.”

 

Steve F.

You can repeat yourself until you are blue in the face, Steve. Stick to marketing and leave the technical work to others.

Roy

[Steve F]

Please re-read my last entry. I'm not disagreeing with any of your technical x-o statements, but you paint an incomplete picture of the priorities of product design and what constitutes a successful or unsuccessful product. It's the full picture that counts, and you're simply not presenting the full picture. Actually, you don't present any picture at all.

Perhaps AR would have been better off having no model at all between the 2ax and 3a. The 5 certainly didn't do well. I have no idea how you feel about a different 5 or what form it might have taken, since you've never put forth an opinion.

Steve F.

[Aadams]

3 hours ago, RoyC said:

Although I personally like the 5, I for one was not trying to justify its existence...and I do not doubt a cheaper 12 incher would have sold better

 

30 minutes ago, Steve F said:

I have no idea how you feel about a different 5 or what form it might have taken, since you've never put forth an opinion.

JIC this wasn't seen.  Opinion was stated

Aadams

 

[tysontom]

33 minutes ago, Steve F said:

Please re-read my last entry. I'm not disagreeing with any of your technical x-o statements, but you paint an incomplete picture of the priorities of product design and what constitutes a successful or unsuccessful product. It's the full picture that counts, and you're simply not presenting the full picture. Actually, you don't present any picture at all.

Perhaps AR would have been better off having no model at all between the 2ax and 3a. The 5 certainly didn't do well. I have no idea how you feel about a different 5 or what form it might have taken, since you've never put forth an opinion.

Steve F.

I think we have maligned the AR-5 and have characterized it as a sales "failure," and so forth.  That is probably not exactly correct; surely it was not the success of the AR-2ax or the AR-3a for many reasons we have stated here before, but I have seen serial numbers all the way to 44,000 for Norwood versions made towards the end.  Granted, the 3a made it to well-above 100,000 units, but 44k is not a sales failure by any means.  Perhaps the AR-5 had "lackluster" sales.

As for sound quality, I personally think the AR-5 was one of AR's better-sounding speakers.  Except for the last ⅓-octave in bass and a bit of power-handling down there, it sounded somewhat cleaner and less ponderous than the AR-3a, known to be a bit heavy-sounding with some early ferrite versions.  The AR-5 was smooth, effortlessly spacious and musical with zero heaviness.  It was clearly superior to anything in its class in every respect except for deep bass.  In bass distortion, I doubt there was anything in its class that could surpass it down to around 45 Hz or so.  The only problem was that last little bit of bass.  The Advent Loudspeaker wasn't even close in quality to the AR-5 with that one exception.  Therefore, as long as the AR-5 wasn't being compared directly side-by-side with an Advent or even the AR-3a, it was as good as it got.

I bought a pair of AR-5s for my sister, but she returned them to me a couple years later after she and her husband managed to blow out two tweeters during a party one night.  I needn't go into details, but her partially deaf and fully inebriated husband did the deed, taking a very nice Marantz 2270 with it.  I sent the AR-5 pair back to AR (repaired and returned to me at no charge even though it was clearly "abuse—accidental or otherwise"), and I used them for a few years as an office system, and I really loved them.

This picture was taken of my SN 21418 for Howard Ferstler's book on audio.

The idea of the AR-5 having been a AR-2ax with the AR-3a woofer is truly ludicrous.  There is no way that the woofer can get up high enough to effectively overlap with the 3½-inch midrange, which is at its very lowest operating frequency around 1 kHz.  The Alnico AR-3 woofer will barely make it to 900-1000 Hz, but the ferrite woofer begins to roll off way too soon, as I indicated with the response graph.  The 12-inch ferrite woofer for the AR-3 was in the planning stages at this point, too.  The 3½-inch 2ax midrange was designed to have a crossover around 1400 Hz or so in order to keep distortion low and to prevent self-destruction; it would be in real trouble trying to live at 1 kHz.  More importantly, the cost of materials and so forth would put such a speaker close to $200 retail even back then.  It is a terrible idea.

—Tom Tyson

[RoyC]

3 hours ago, Steve F said:

.Perhaps AR would have been better off having no model at all between the 2ax and 3a. The 5 certainly didn't do well. I have no idea how you feel about a different 5 or what form it might have taken, since you've never put forth an opinion.

Steve F.

Not sure you have been reading mine, Steve. I agreed with you! It's just that the replacement you are suggesting is essentially the AR-3 with a 2ax mid in a plain cabinet (which would have to be built to accommodate the 12 inch woofer). Pairing the 2ax mid with the existing 12 inch woofer would have been a giant step backward. It simply would not have stood up to larger amps and rock and roll...and eventually, Large Advents. AR did not sell the 1x to that kind of market.

As for the need for any AR-5 at all...perhaps selling only 45,000 or so 5's was not worth the effort, and (again) I agree AR could have filled the spot with a speaker more suited to the pop and rock music fans who were fueling the "stereo" buying explosion. Regardless of the actual AR speaker, however, I think you would have had to be AR's marketing manager to pull it off (that was a compliment). AR was pretty invisible when, as a young rock and pop music enthusiast with very little dough, I began shopping for my first "nice" speakers in late1971. Most roads were leading to Advent. I also had friends actively hunting for used KLH models as great bangs for the buck.

Its fun to speculate, and I find your business insights interesting and compelling...but in the end AR's probable loss turned out to be today's gain for enthusiasts. I'm glad there is a 5, and not a lesser 12 inch version to lug around the shop. I happen to appreciate the 5's design, and enjoy it very much, especially with certain types of music. Based on knocking around the innards of AR speakers for almost 40 years, I think I get what AR was trying to do, but my personal preference does not make me believe it should have been a more successful product. I don't disagree with your reasons why it wasn't.

Roy

[RoyC]

1 hour ago, tysontom said:

As for sound quality, I personally think the AR-5 was one of AR's better-sounding speakers.  Except for the last ⅓-octave in bass and a bit of power-handling down there, it sounded somewhat cleaner and less ponderous than the AR-3a, known to be a bit heavy-sounding with some early ferrite versions.  The AR-5 was smooth, effortlessly spacious and musical with zero heaviness.  It was clearly superior to anything in its class in every respect except for deep bass.  In bass distortion, I doubt there was anything in its class that could surpass it down to around 45 Hz or so.  The only problem was that last little bit of bass.  The Advent Loudspeaker wasn't even close in quality to the AR-5 with that one exception.  Therefore, as long as the AR-5 wasn't being compared directly side-by-side with an Advent or even the AR-3a, it was as good as it got.

—Tom Tyson

I'm with you on this one, Tom. I would only add that the Advent is actually somewhat more sensitive in side by side comparisons, as are the 2ax and 3a. This certainly didn't help it in the showroom.

Unfortunately, today many 5's are suffering from the tweeter degradation issue we've discussed here so often. After an otherwise complete restoration some folks feel it is a bit lifeless. Getting the tweeters sorted out usually changes the impression to a much more positive one.

Tom, I can't find our correspondence, but I believe we compared notes on a pair of Ebay AR-5's awhile back with serial numbers in the neighborhood of 49,000. I remember you being quite surprised. I'll try to find it.

Roy

[Steve F]

People on this thread continually conflate the sound quality of the AR-5 with its market sales performance. For the 50,000^th time, everyone agrees that the real AR-5 was a terrific speaker. It didn’t have the 3a’s heaviness, many people said “AR finally got it right,”, etc., etc., etc. yada, yada, yada. OK? That’s not this thread.

This thread is why didn’t the 5 sell well (use your own word of choice: defend AR to the last man standing and use the mild word “lackluster,” or call reality reality and say “failure” or “flop,” or use any word in between that suits your emotional/egotistical/logical purposes. Split whatever semantic hairs you like—makes no difference to me.), and what AR might have done differently.

AR did, in fact, pair the 12-in alnico woofer with the 2 ½-in and 3 ½-in drivers and deem them worthy to offer as commercial systems. If you choose to ignore and deny that, then that’s your choice. Perhaps that was a “ludicrous” decision on AR’s part.

From a sales/marketing standpoint, AR obviously could have done something more effective than the real AR-5. It’s also undeniable that above the 2ax-ish price point, an AR customer wanted AR 12-in bass. Not “close” to AR 12-in bass. They wanted 3/3a bass. In 1967, at the time that the 10-in 3-way dome m/dome t 5 was being sketched out on Roy Allison’s napkin at lunch, what should AR have done instead?

That’s this thread. Not how nice the real AR-5 ended up sounding in your office above 45-50Hz. This thread is why didn’t the 5 sell well and what else might AR have done when they were planning the 5 in 1967?

 

Steve F.

[genek]

I've already given my answer to that question. They should have put a dome midrange on a new generation of the 2ax. If they really wanted more to do, work on cost reduction for both 3-way models.

And now a tech question. AR originally used the same 4 ohm dome tweeter on both the 3 and the 2a/2ax. Why make 8 ohm versions of the 3a tweeter and mid? Could they not have designed crossovers to use the 4 ohm drivers and avoid the expense of stocking additional parts?

[Aadams]

1 hour ago, Steve F said:

It’s also undeniable that above the 2ax-ish price point, an AR customer wanted AR 12-in bass. Not “close” to AR 12-in bass. They wanted 3/3a bass. In 1967, at the time that the 10-in 3-way dome m/dome t 5 was being sketched out on Roy Allison’s napkin at lunch, what should AR have done instead?

That’s this thread. Not how nice the real AR-5 ended up sounding in your office above 45-50Hz. This thread is why didn’t the 5 sell well and what else might AR have done when they were planning the 5 in 1967?

Agreed.  And if we can all agree about this one point we have an abundance of material from previous thread posts that could provide some resolution and perhaps a hypothetical product.

Just suppose we could go back to the day of the EMS meeting when Marketing and Sales emphatically demanded that Engineering create a pig with even more lipstick than the competition, that could be sold at a competitive price without losing money.  The rationale? Stealing a sale from the competition that we could not have gotten otherwise is still better than permanently losing market share and customer loyalty. This time the guy with the purse strings sides with Sales and says "Swans are our main business but we need to make a pig with a lot of lipstick". 

Give me some proposals that won't lose money and will meet the competitive challenge inside acceptable margin constraints.  History has already proven that a 10" parts bin pig with a hint of lipstick will fail.  What do we need to make or buy in order solve the problem?

Note: You might view this an indirect blame resolution exercise, i.e. regarding AR, not this thread.

Adams

 

[der]

DISCLAIMER: I never worked in the industry and lay no claim to being an expert on speaker design.  

I will say this. Even though it was a long time ago I do remember shopping for my first pair of what I considered audiophile speakers. I wanted the AR brand because I had friends that owned them and I had heard them and really like the sound.  I was aware that AR made speakers at different price points with different components including 8, 10, and 12" woofers. I NEVER considered anything from the AR line that didn't contain a 12" woofer.  That's what I desired. I had to wait a while longer to save the money for the 3a but I did just that.  I was 22 years old and that's simply what I wanted. Had there been a cheaper speaker that featured a 12" woofer I think I would have given it serious consideration.  

der

[RoyC]

2 hours ago, genek said:

I've already given my answer to that question. They should have put a dome midrange on a new generation of the 2ax. If they really wanted more to do, work on cost reduction for both 3-way models.

And now a tech question. AR originally used the same 4 ohm dome tweeter on both the 3 and the 2a/2ax. Why make 8 ohm versions of the 3a tweeter and mid? Could they not have designed crossovers to use the 4 ohm drivers and avoid the expense of stocking adxitional parts?

Easily done, Gene. There would have been absolutely no reason to make an 8 ohm mid for the AR-5 if the goal was to build it from off the shelf speaker parts. A couple of resistors would be all that was needed to use the 3a mid and tweeter. Tom will know better, but the 8 ohm version of the 3a tweeter may have been intended for the AR-5 and 2ax simultaneously. I believe the 2nd version of the 2ax using the 8 ohm version of the 3/4" tweeter and foam surround woofer was introduced around the same time as the 5.

On the other hand going from 8 to 4 ohms is harder, or impossible, depending on the design.

Regarding the alternative AR-5,  Steve has already informed us...just get a bigger 2ax cabinet to accommodate the 12 inch woofer. He already has all the answers. What's to discuss? Wouldn't want him to repeat himself...again...

Roy

[genek]

Then from an engineering POV, my big "what were they thinking?" question would be why stock 4 and 8 ohm versions of any driver? 

[RoyC]

10 minutes ago, genek said:

Then from an engineering POV, my big "what were they thinking?" question would be why stock 4 and 8 ohm versions of any driver? 

Sensitivity...Also, some designs call for running drivers in series or parallel. For example, the LST-2 runs the tweeters, as well as the mids, in parallel. It is easier to use higher impedance drivers in this case.

Roy

[sphotoz]

I bought my AR-5's on March 5, 1974 for $146 each.  I still have the original receipt.  I still use these speakers on a daily basis.  I am not a collector, speaker designer or expert on the subject.  I restored them and replaced the tweeters a few years ago with the HiVi's with the help of RoyC.

I did a lot of research prior to buying the AR-5's.  The majority of my friends were using big Sansui or Pioneer speakers.  I had a few friends who owned AR-3's and AR-2ax's.  At the time, I was a 21 year old married sailor stationed in Alaska.  The price difference to me at the time was pretty significant.  Our preference in music is more for acoustic or soft rock.  What struck me with the AR-5's is the purity of the sound especially at the mid range.  I have never been a person that likes the big overwhelming bass.  Many people are, especially young people.  I'll have a young person pull up next to me in their car and all I can here is the boom, boom, boom coming from their car stereo.

Anyway, I am saying that the marketing and price point appealed to me, and from the sound of it to approximately 50,000 other people.  The main thing I always heard from my fellow sailors was that it was basically the same as a AR-2ax.  I think this may have been one of the primary problem with the AR-5, people viewed it as a AR-2ax, so they did not see a reason to spend more money on it.  

[ra.ra]

Thanx, sphotoz, for a great story with your personal purchase rationale and a strong lasting testimony. Other CSP members who bought AR-5's as their first speakers have chimed in on this thread, but I've been eager to hear from an original buyer's perspective exactly what drew them to the AR-5. Like yourself, the midrange frequencies appeal to me most.

And to RoyC, thx for the technical background to these various drivers and wiring arrangements.

[Aadams]

The AR5 may well be the best speaker ever made for listening to recordings that do not include the last 15hz of the music catalog but that is not what this thread is about. The AR 5 stands on its own. It is not a pig with lipstick and wasn't even conceived to compete with them.  AR5  Product testimonials will not resolve this thread that seemingly will not die. However, I must say, this thread has flushed out lurkers and brought life to this forum that is usually dead on a weekend and I am enjoying it. :)

 

Adams

[genek]

1 hour ago, sphotoz said:

I bought my AR-5's on March 5, 1974 for $146 each.

The price on my 2ax's in Jun 1975 was $115 each. If the 5's had been priced lower, say around $125-$130, I probably would have gone for them. But side by side, I didn't see them worth almost 30% more.

[tysontom]

14 hours ago, RoyC said:

I'm with you on this one, Tom. I would only add that the Advent is actually somewhat more sensitive in side by side comparisons, as are the 2ax and 3a. This certainly didn't help it in the showroom.

Unfortunately, today many 5's are suffering from the tweeter degradation issue we've discussed here so often. After an otherwise complete restoration some folks feel it is a bit lifeless. Getting the tweeters sorted out usually changes the impression to a much more positive one.

Tom, I can't find our correspondence, but I believe we compared notes on a pair of Ebay AR-5's awhile back with serial numbers in the neighborhood of 49,000. I remember you being quite surprised. I'll try to find it.

Roy

Not only the did Advent have a slight bass advantage, but it was also slightly more efficient than the AR-5 (or any of the AR speakers).  In A-B comparison, it would come across as somewhat  "louder," as well as possessing marginally more-powerful bass with a brighter treble, no less, making it seem even more efficient.  The difference in smoothness (in favor of the AR-5) was significant, but the Advent nevertheless had a pleasant midrange and treble once back in the listening room.  Old Advent tweeters continue to sound pretty much as they did originally, whereas the AR tweeter has begun to suffer over time, and Roy probably knows this better than anyone.

The highest serial number range for the AR-5 I've seen so far is 44,016 (eBay), but I think you are right that the number went nearly to 50,000 before the end of production in 1975—really not that bad for a speaker that started at $175.00. 

AR-5 prices: the retail price went up to $189.00 in 1973 when AR moved over to Norwood, and during this move AR began to implement better crossover components, back-wired drivers, ferrite-magnet 10-inch woofer, and the Velcro-attached grills.  In 1974 the price went even higher to $199 (for oiled walnut veneer or pine) and by the last year—1975—AR charged $215.00 each for the speaker in oiled-walnut veneer or pine (the AR-3a was up to $295 each at this time, too).  I believe I remember someone at AR telling me that the AR-5 was barely profitable, and later price increases reflected this. 

AR dealer margins by this time had eased up to 35%!  Imagine that; meanwhile, nearly all competitors were selling to dealers at 40-50% off list, with kickbacks, spiffs of different sorts, holdbacks, and other promotions to keep the troops happy.  To win back dealers, Teledyne/AR finally joined these ranks to some degree by 1976 or so.  

—Tom  

[Steve F]

As Roy said, "Although I personally like the 5, I for one was not trying to justify its existence...and I do not doubt a cheaper 12 incher would have sold better."

Der said, "I NEVER considered anything from the AR line that didn't contain a 12" woofer.  That's what I desired. I had to wait a while longer to save the money for the 3a but I did just that.  I was 22 years old and that's simply what I wanted. Had there been a cheaper speaker that featured a 12" woofer I think I would have given it serious consideration."

Obviously the attraction of AR 12-in bass was very strong, and the 5 was a miscalculation. The draw--once you got past the 2ax price point--was dat bass, not the smooth dome mid. The refinement of the dome mid should have been icing on the TOTL cake (which the 3a delivered, along with the nicer cabinet and the TOTL prestige).

The 5 sold all of 49,000 copies in its 7 year lifespan, a whopping 7k/yr average (obviously higher in 68/9-72, less afterwards). Very, um, "lackluster," no?

Ok, if the 12-inch 2ax is "ludicrous," would "ruin AR's reputation," and would result in "many blown mids," etc, etc, I'd love to hear what Roy's idea for a 'cheaper 12 incher' in the 1968/9 timeframe would've been. Something around the 5's retail that Der would have actually bought, using parts and drivers that either existed or were a stone's throw away from reality. Time to market is everything, so wild, tail-chasing, science-project flights of "what-if/if-only" imagination regarding new drivers are not invited to this discussion.

12-inch is the key. 10's need not apply. In 1968/9, from AR, it needed to be their 12-inch woofer with that characteristic truncated frame, otherwise Der (and 100,000 other Ders) is not interested. What should it have been and let's see the detailed cost analysis vs. the 2ax and 3a that would enable it to hit around $170 ea. give or take a few bucks.

Pretend you're me: Design a real product, using actual or realistically-obtainable parts, calculated to actual costs, that can be produced in a specific timeframe, that has a very specific appeal and marketing plan to a viable customer group. No generalities allowed. In professional marketing terms, this is known as the "Product Definition." Every single thing about a proposed product--every driver, cabinet, capacitor, nut and bolt ( all costed out), the lead times, the corporate margin, the dealer margin, the retail price, the sales projection with backup/justification, every single aspect of the proposed new product is defined. No loosey-gooseyness at all.

I'm all ears. Let's see 'em, from everyone. The ball's now in your court and I get to say whether it makes sense.

Steve F.

[tysontom]

1 hour ago, Steve F said:

As Roy said, "Although I personally like the 5, I for one was not trying to justify its existence...and I do not doubt a cheaper 12 incher would have sold better."

Der said, "I NEVER considered anything from the AR line that didn't contain a 12" woofer.  That's what I desired. I had to wait a while longer to save the money for the 3a but I did just that.  I was 22 years old and that's simply what I wanted. Had there been a cheaper speaker that featured a 12" woofer I think I would have given it serious consideration."

Obviously the attraction of AR 12-in bass was very strong, and the 5 was a miscalculation. The draw--once you got past the 2ax price point--was dat bass, not the smooth dome mid. The refinement of the dome mid should have been icing on the TOTL cake (which the 3a delivered, along with the nicer cabinet and the TOTL prestige).

The 5 sold all of 49,000 copies in its 7 year lifespan, a whopping 7k/yr average (obviously higher in 68/9-72, less afterwards). Very, um, "lackluster," no?

Ok, if the 12-inch 2ax is "ludicrous," would "ruin AR's reputation," and would result in "many blown mids," etc, etc, I'd love to hear what Roy's idea for a 'cheaper 12 incher' in the 1968/9 timeframe would've been. Something around the 5's retail that Der would have actually bought, using parts and drivers that either existed or were a stone's throw away from reality. Time to market is everything, so wild, tail-chasing, science-project flights of "what-if/if-only" imagination regarding new drivers are not invited to this discussion.

12-inch is the key. 10's need not apply. In 1968/9, from AR, it needed to be their 12-inch woofer with that characteristic truncated frame, otherwise Der (and 100,000 other Ders) is not interested. What should it have been and let's see the detailed cost analysis vs. the 2ax and 3a that would enable it to hit around $170 ea. give or take a few bucks.

Pretend you're me: Design a real product, using actual or realistically-obtainable parts, calculated to actual costs, that can be produced in a specific timeframe, that has a very specific appeal and marketing plan to a viable customer group. No generalities allowed. In professional marketing terms, this is known as the "Product Definition." Every single thing about a proposed product--every driver, cabinet, capacitor, nut and bolt ( all costed out), the lead times, the corporate margin, the dealer margin, the retail price, the sales projection with backup/justification, every single aspect of the proposed new product is defined. No loosey-gooseyness at all.

I'm all ears. Let's see 'em, from everyone. The ball's now in your court and I get to say whether it makes sense.

Steve F.

It is debatable that AR should never have designed the AR-5 but instead an inexpensive 3-way with the big AR-3a woofer, or a 3a woofer in a 2-way design, similar to KLH's Model Twenty-Three, a speaker with the KLH Five's woofer with only a single tweeter.  An AR two-way seems reasonable, too, except that there was no AR mid/tweeter compatible with this woofer.  

Therefore, the "new" AR would almost certainly have to be a 3-way with the expense of the big woofer and all of its trappings.  No one disagrees with the notion that AR's 12-inch bass was very strong and highly desirable, but literally no one agrees with the notion that you could take that expensive and purpose-built AR 12-inch woofer and stuff it into some arbitrary, cheaply built cabinet with the AR-2ax midrange and the dome tweeter and end up with a viable speaker system.  It is a mismatch; a nightmare.  The road to hell is paved with good intentions, but pure common sense tells us that this 12-inch AR-2ax idea can't and won't work.  It is incompatible, and it is lunacy. 

AR would never have attempted it, nor would anyone else in the real world.  Maybe Boston Acoustics, but that's a different breed of cat and a different time.  Furthermore, common sense tells us that nothing is financially rational with this 12-inch AR-2ax combination: you throw out hypothetical numbers saying that it will work, but you  have no hard numbers, and you are challenging others here to come up with "Product Definition" and "no generalities allowed." 

There is simply no possible way you could take the 200003-0 woofer and make it work reliably with the 2ax 3½-inch midrange.  Yes, AR did it out of necessity for a brief period with the AR-1x with the old-style 3700 woofer, but that combination didn't last long and it was a stop-gap measure.  Moreover, the midrange can't operate safely down that low (1 kHz is as low as it can even respond) without distortion and possible thermal damage; the ferrite woofer can't go up that high (1 kHz) and blend with it.  You have seen the raw curves on the woofer: you should be able to see that it is not truly compatible with anything that needs a 1kHz crossover.  As with the AR-1x, it would require a 6 dB/octave crossover, and that would likely seal the fate of the midrange driver with that much overlap.  

Finally, by the time you figured the cost of a larger cabinet with more wood, more braces, more stuffing, more "T-nuts," more and larger machine screws, larger crossover components, impedance-matching nightmares, this thing would likely have been even more expensive than the original AR-5, and it would not have been a very good loudspeaker.  The only way around this, using hindsight as our guide, would have been to redesign the AR-2ax 10-inch woofer with a heavier cone, bigger magnet, longer voice coil and a larger frame.  Advent basically used a 12-inch frame with a 10-inch woofer mechanism; perhaps AR should have done something like this as well and could have contracted with Alden Mfg. Co to pump out some larger frames to match with bigger magnets and heavier cones.  In the end, perhaps AR-5 may have been the best choice anyway. 

--Tom Tyson

[JKent]

Hard to believe this is still going on after 4 pages' worth (whatever happened to the numbered posts? I liked being able to keep count).

What's the difference in bass extension between the 5 and 3a? Can't be much. And how much music has notes at those frequencies? OK--I admit I like my 3a's and 91s but I really liked my AR-2ax's. I sold those when I got the 3a's and now wish I'd done a side-by-side comparison. And I've never heard the AR-5 but from what people say the 5s were sort of an improved 2ax, so I'd probably love them! I also really liked the KLH Model Five--a 4-driver 3-way system with a so-called 12" woofer that really measured under 11".  MSRP was $180 each, about the same as the AR-5. Had some OLAs for a while and wanted to like them but they did not sound nearly as good as the AR-2ax IMHO.

Of course this is all very subjective. I have great respect for the tech I do business with and he hates AR speakers. He has Rogers and KEF. Chacun à son goût. Actually, his Brit speakers are very nice, as are some other friends' Tannoys, but I think we're chasing our tails here. And yes, it's a shame the great New England companies all bit the dust (except Bose of course) but we're not going to resurrect them speculating about coulda/shoulda.

I'm just glad these old beasts are still available, and at bargain prices, for us to fix up and enjoy. Too bad I've run out of room for speakers. I'll never have the AR-5s (or the KLH Nines I've been lusting after  ).

Sorry for the rambling. That's Frank's job 

-Kent

[Aadams]

6 hours ago, JKent said:

What's the difference in bass extension between the 5 and 3a? Can't be much. And how much music has notes at those frequencies?

You have struck at the heart of the issue.  The last 15hz of music below 45HZ is almost exclusively in Classical music where bottom can be very important depending on the composition.   The lowest note on a standard 4 string bass whether electric or acoustic is 41hz.  Bass drums also have low fundamental frequencies. The AR 10 inchers were already approaching 6db down at a point where the OLA was  still going strong, loud and clean enough on the favorite music of the most impressionable and numerous buyers of the day.  In modern recordings the last 15hz can also be found in electronic music and rock or jazz where a 5 string bass is employed.  Somebody at AR really missed the boat.