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

[der]

9 minutes ago, Aadams said:

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. 

Of course what you say is true but I wanted the big boys.  I was a 22 year old that had never owned any decent gear.  I heard AR3a's and had to have them!  I wanted the best they had (at the time).  Pretty rich acquisition for me at the time.  But, they turned out to be a good investment.  That same pair still sits in my living room and is listened to almost daily - 48 years later. 

der

[Aadams]

1 hour ago, der said:

Of course what you say is true but I wanted the big boys.  I was a 22 year old that had never owned any decent gear.  I heard AR3a's and had to have them!  I wanted the best they had (at the time).  Pretty rich acquisition for me at the time.  But, they turned out to be a good investment.  That same pair still sits in my living room and is listened to almost daily - 48 years later. 

der

It wasn't like the 10 inch ARs weren't playing the low bass notes.  They certainly were doing a good job playing the harmonics but just weren't providing the strong attack of the lowest fundamentals including the bass drum. The OLA, in comparison, thrived in that narrow extra 7hz area before it died as did the AR3 series except it went lower and was cleaner throughout.  The AR3a also, justifiably, had TOTL snob appeal. I remember being puzzled why anyone would want a 3a just because a magazine said it was the best, when I could hear the dramatic difference between it and a number of what, at the time, were considered full range speakers that were more sensitive.

[der]

I assure you that snob appeal was the last thing on my mind!  I had a friend that owned 4 - 3a's that he drove with some massive McIntosh gear to quite high levels in a listening room that he had tailored acoustically.  I listened to his setup quite a bit and was smitten with the big AR's from day one. 

der

[frankmarsi]

                 

                 5-27-17

                  

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

                 -Kent

 

  I think you’re correct “Kent” as it isn’t my job to continually go on about the AR-5 speaker for 5 pages as it’s insignificant for owners like myself who own and use double stacked AR-LST's. And although in my collection, I own four AR-2ax's, I'd rather own the AR-5 because of the midrange that was used in that speaker.

P.S. "You know we all hear something but, some hear all."

              

               

[der]

No wonder I could never find a pair of LST. frankmarsi has them all.  Pretty sweet. 

der

[frankmarsi]

 

Hi der, give me a two week notice and you are welcome to be my guest for a few days.

I only ask that you will be able to sit for a number of hours to enjoy what I enjoy.

Rest assured that you will be listening to music on a system that many only dream about but, hardly ever attain.

If you have some vinyl disks that are in decent condition bring them along and I'll 'ultrasonically' or 'brush and vacuum' clean them for you so we can listen to them as a point of reference.

Understand though that I have close to 7000 vinyl disks comprising all types of music and no doubt I will have something you'd enjoy. Linked below is some jazz.

FM

 

P.S.  " We all hear something but, some hear all."

 

[dynaco_dan]

5 hours ago, frankmarsi said:

 

Hi der, give me a two week notice and you are welcome to be my guest for a few days.

I only ask that you will be able to sit for a number of hours to enjoy what I enjoy.

Rest assured that you will be listening to music on a system that many only dream about but, hardly ever attain.

If you have some vinyl disks that are in decent condition bring them along and I'll 'ultrasonically' or 'brush and vacuum' clean them for you so we can listen to them as a point of reference.

Understand though that I have close to 7000 vinyl disks comprising all types of music and no doubt I will have something you'd enjoy. Linked below is some jazz.

FM

P.S.  " We all hear something but, some hear all."

Merge 1 files (5)Best.mp4

Hi Frank

It appears that you have all of the toy's and all in one room my friend.

Vern

[frankmarsi]

5 hours ago, dynaco_dan said:

Hi Frank

It appears that you have all of the toy's and all in one room my friend.

Vern

Hey stranger, where have you been after all of these years?

We first started talking in 2004 on these pages, it's good to hear that you're back.

Yes, I do have all of the necessary components, the stuff that made up my dreams going back since the mid 1960's.

Rest assured that everything is working at its peak performance and that I'm happier than ever about it!

Since we spoke last, I've become a full fledged vinyl-freak-a-zoid worse than ever before and after retiring, I felt damn, I deserve it!

Of concern to you like years ago, I don't blow FNM-2 fuses like I used to do but, I now have over 50+ spare fuses that I bought back then just in case.

Back then, I was buying them for about $1.50 to $2.50 each, now they're much higher, nuts.

I don't blow fuses primarily because I've improved my input sources and the sound is cleaner than ever and the dynamics of clean vinyl and the utilization of top cartridges, tonearms, tables, and better input cables has certainly helped. When we spoke last, what over 10+ or so years ago, I was using CD mid-level players costing $499. to $699. MSRP and struggling to hear the dynamics and presence that I was used to getting with vinyl. Mind you, I became more  of a record nut than ever before and insist on clean vinyl but, that's another story. When we first met I only had about 300 records, now I own close to 7000, and still buying more used and new ones every month, crazy no? Un-like some, I never actually left vinyl, I just gave it a rest because vinyl became scarce in supply to purchase. But since the vinyl resurgence of the last 10 years I delved into the vinyl-gold mine more than ever!

What do you think about this long post regarding the poor and neglected AR-5?  Gee, that poor 10 inch woofer has been thrown from pillar to post here lately but, I would gladly trade my 2ax's for 5's any day.   I haven't used my 2axs' in over 34 years. As a devout AR speaker lover, I don't subscribe in letting any AR speakers go once I've captured them.

And being a 'salt' like I know you are, I'm sure you'll still agree that the AR 12 inch bugger reigns supreme as it always has.

Thanks for noticing my hi-fi 'control-center'. All of the controls are there Eugene.*

What's new in your Hi-Fi world? 

Best Regards, FM

 

*Floyd

 

[stupidhead]

On ‎5‎/‎25‎/‎2017 at 2:41 PM, Steve F said:

 

We can’t re-write history and rationalize that the actual 10-inch AR-5 was the right speaker for AR to have done. It simply wasn’t. It was a huge mistake and a total sales failure. The 12-inch 2ax at $168 list in 1968-9 would have been a huge success, another all-star to add to the winning roster of a winning team.

 

Steve F.

So I have followed this thread and found it interesting for sure. Thanx to the mod that separated it from the previously merged thread by the way.

I am no marketing guru, nor am I inclined to try and calculate what "could have been". And to make blanket statements that a different approach would have been a "huge success" seems a bit arrogant in my opinion. No disrespect intended. Everyone has an opinion and is entitled to it.

It is my opinion that 40 years later, I am very glad they did exactly what they did. The 60's-70's line up of offerings is now a sought after property, and for good reason. Take the 2ax model as an example. The various configurations over the run of time had multiple mods and hardware changes. I personally prefer the original 2ax over the final config by a long shot, and they command a premium value in my opinion. The 5 is no 2ax in any configuration, and has a sound of it's own.

In the example of the 5s, to me they feel like the final set of ARs that are in the realm of Villchur's original vision, before technology and production processes impacted the offerings, not to speak of influences from new owners and engineers and a changing market.  The fact that sales were not brisk leaves us 40 years later with a model that is a wonderful speaker and a market that isn't flooded with examples, like the Advents of the era that are not nearly as good in my opinion.

The original question "Should the AR-5 have been a 12" Speaker?" has been debated here ad nauseam and the answer is no. If anyone thinks a different speaker would have saved AR from it's fate I beg to differ.

[tysontom]

On 5/26/2017 at 10:23 PM, 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.

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.

"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."

You asked; I delivered.  

 

The Advent Loudspeaker tweeter in its Advent cabinet measured -- warts and all -- in a large anechoic chamber.  I will not say exactly who measured it except to say that it was in 1975-76.  I agree with what Steve says about the effect of smoothing. Once back away from the direct output of the tweeter, the tweeter sounded much better than it looked when measured in the anechoic chamber.  It therefore never sounded as poorly as this graph makes it look, but this measurement was made using a B&K automatically recorded chart recorder  of that tweeter, using a calibrated B&K 4133 1/2-inch free-field condenser microphone.  All test equipment was re-calibrated each day at this lab.  There are some obvious diffraction effects going on here as well.  Nevertheless, the effects of a "seat-of-the-pants" tweeter design are apparent.

Compare with the AR-5 1-1/3-inch midrange:

 

--Tom

[ar_pro]

Dynaco Dan! Great to see you back, Vern.

[RoyC]

On 5/27/2017 at 8:22 PM, Steve F said:

I'd love to hear what Roy's idea for a 'cheaper 12 incher' in the 1968/9 timeframe would've been.

Steve F.

I've been thinking about this, Steve, and if we were limited to the known AR parts bin and price of the original 5, I don't see many (if any) decent possibilities. My only suggestion comes out of left field, and would be more expensive. Perhaps AR should have discontinued the AR-3 immediately upon the introduction of the 3a in 67, and offered essentially a "utility cabinet" version of the former 3, with a cone tweeter and 3a mid...and name it something else.  If "rough" is acceptable, I don't see any reason for the expensive, difficult to manufacture, fragile 3/4" dome tweeter to compete against the likes of the Large Advent. The AR-3 crossover is nearly as simple as the 2ax crossover and would be easy to manufacture. The cabinet could be the 3/3a cabinet with a lesser finish, no bracing, and no trim. The dreaded pots could also be eliminated.The drawback of course, is it would still cost more than the Large Advent.

Even if the above is a bad idea, I've always wondered why AR let the AR-3 overlap with the 3a for so long. Tom; Steve? It would seem this would also be a miscalculation if a less expensive 12 inch speaker should have been under consideration.

I think we all agree AR was simply focused on more refined speakers and never saw the rock and roll train coming down the track. Who really was the "AR customer"? It certainly wasn't my college peers and fellow graduates in the late 60's and early 70's. I do remember a party in a very large room in 1968 during which I just had to find out what was pounding out Jimi Hendrix so loudly and cleanly....turned out to be KLH 6's. I saw other KLH models (17 and 20) being used in the same manner. In retrospect, Henry was already ahead of the game. I also remember Japanese speakers such as Pioneer, and Lafayette Criterion purchased because they were less expensive, had multiple drivers (more must be better), and 12 inch woofers! (Of course, that was when I realized not all 12 inch woofers were created equal.) An interesting experience was when I witnessed a comparison between large 12 inch Criterion speakers and a pair of comparatively diminutive Dynaco A25's. The A25's blew them away in every respect.

The only AR's I heard in that time frame were AR-3's hanging in a bar. It was the only other time I just had to find out what speakers the music was coming from...and is the motivation for my thoughts above.

Roy

[Steve F]

AR was stuck in a late-50's/early-60's mindset. The "40's to 50's-year-old GE engineer listening to classical music and Dave Brubeck in his middle-class suburban split-level home at comfortably moderate volumes." That was their vision of their customer. Oh-so-deliberate and detail-oriented. 

When you think about it, the KLH6/17/5 and OLA were perfectly suitable in the real world for Hendrix, Brubeck and Mozart, but the 4x/2ax/3a really only shined on 2 of those 3. Say what you want about anechoic smoothness and 60-degree off-axis dispersion, AR's technical superiority did not translate into real-world sales success once the buying demographic shifted from the 1962 GE engineer to the 1969 college kid.

The AR-5 was a product of that early-1960's thinking, and although it was a great-sounding refined speaker, AR's myopic view of the music market doomed it to an undistinguished sales career.

As to the 3 overlapping with the 3a, for 50 years, I haven't been able to explain that one. Roy A. was a great designer and product person, but let's call it as it was: he was a lousy marketer. His refusal to deviate from his self-imposed restriction of "room-matched loudspeakers" with the Allison brand showed his lack of marketing vision. There should have been a line of regular forward-facing bookshelf box speakers under the Allison name, using his great Allison drivers. He was stubborn and shortsighted.

As I've said many times on this thread, I can just envision the lunch meeting in 1967 where he sketched out the AR-5 on a napkin to whomever, and I'm sure to Roy, it was a great idea.

Steve F.

[Aadams]

1 hour ago, Steve F said:

3a really only shined on 2 of those 3.

Agree except for the quoted part.  The 3a had it covered. A listener might prefer the OLA presentation to that of the AR but both speakers could span the entire sound spectrum contained in the works of the artists named in your post.  One would have to pull out some very special recordings for the 3a to separate itself. But the Advent even then could fake you into believing it was doing the work.  And, at the price, with peer pressure and the help of a dealer, it was easy to rationalize what the 3a offered wasn't really needed.  

[tysontom]

10 hours ago, RoyC said:

I've been thinking about this, Steve, and if we were limited to the known AR parts bin and price of the original 5, I don't see many (if any) decent possibilities. My only suggestion comes out of left field, and would be more expensive. Perhaps AR should have discontinued the AR-3 immediately upon the introduction of the 3a in 67, and offered essentially a "utility cabinet" version of it with a cone tweeter and 3a mid...and name it something else.  If "rough" is acceptable, I don't see any reason for the expensive, difficult to manufacture, fragile 3/4" dome tweeter to compete against the likes of the Larger Advent. The AR-3 crossover is nearly as simple as the 2ax crossover and would be easy to manufacture. The cabinet could be the 3a cabinet with a lesser finish, no bracing, and no trim. The dreaded pots could also be eliminated.The drawback of course, is it would still cost more than the Large Advent.

Even if the above is a bad idea, I've always wondered why AR let the AR-3 overlap with the 3a for so long. Tom; Steve? It would seem this would also be a miscalculation if a less expensive 12 inch speaker should have been under consideration.

I think we all agree AR was simply focused on more refined speakers and never saw the rock and roll train coming down the track. Who really was the "AR customer"? It certainly wasn't my college peers and fellow graduates in the late 60's and early 70's. I do remember a party in a very large room in 1968 during which I just had to find out what was pounding out Jimi Hendrix so loudly and cleanly....turned out to be KLH 6's. I saw other KLH models (17 and 20) being used in the same manner. In retrospect, Henry was already ahead of the game. I also remember Japanese speakers such as Pioneer, and Lafayette Criterion purchased because they were less expensive, had multiple drivers (more must be better), and 12 inch woofers! (Of course, that was when I realized not all 12 inch woofers were created equal.) An interesting experience was when I witnessed a comparison between large 12 inch Criterion speakers and a pair of comparatively diminutive Dynaco A25's. The A 25's blew them away in every respect.

The only AR's I heard in that time frame were AR-3's hanging in a college bar. It was the only other time I just had to find out what speakers the music was coming from...and is the motivation for my thoughts above.

Roy

>I've been thinking about this, Steve, and if we were limited to the known AR parts bin and price of the original 5, I don't see many (if any) decent possibilities. My only suggestion comes out of left field, and would be more expensive. Perhaps AR should have discontinued the AR-3 immediately upon the introduction of the 3a in 67, and offered essentially a "utility cabinet" version of it with a cone tweeter and 3a mid...and name it something else.  If "rough" is acceptable, I don't see any reason for the expensive, difficult to manufacture, fragile 3/4" dome tweeter to compete against the likes of the Larger Advent. The AR-3 crossover is nearly as simple as the 2ax crossover and would be easy to manufacture. The cabinet could be the 3a cabinet with a lesser finish, no bracing, and no trim. The dreaded pots could also be eliminated.The drawback of course, is it would still cost more than the Large Advent. [Roy]

In hindsight: AR by 1970-1971 probably needed a woofer to fall between the 10-inch AR-2/AR-5 and 12-inch AR-3a flat-side woofers currently available, to compete with The Advent Loudspeaker and some others in that class.  A 2-way speaker was needed in an inexpensive cabinet.  Perhaps even a new line of budget speakers outside the main "classic" line.  This could be an inexpensively built 10-inch woofer, capable of response up to 1300-1400 Hz, with an 11-inch, 6-bolt frame (same size as the original Alnico AR-2) using expansion wood screws like the rest of the industry.  An off-the-shelf OEM-type tweeter with a couple of special "AR tweaks" to keep it somewhat proprietary.  The classic range would be left alone and would compete in a different, more-upscale class.  This new inexpensive series could be marketed to offset any advantage Advent had on the competition.  AR's reputation might have suffered a bit, but sales would have been excellent.    

The existing 10-inch AR-5 woofer could be updated inexpensively with a heavier magnet, slightly larger cone, 1½-inch voice coil with more overhang, lower resonance and the whole deal put into a separate line of speakers aimed directed at the Advent crowd.  The 11 lb. magnet structure and 2-inch voice coil of the AR-3a woofer was simply too costly, unworkable, inappropriate and overkill.  This new speaker might then have a -3dB of 36-38 Hz rather than the-3dB of 44-45 Hz in the later AR14.  The cabinet for this line would have the AR-5-type grill molding with vinyl (optional walnut veneer) in an interior volume approximately the same as the AR-3a.  A handsome, Velcro-attached grill of a slightly different design with some cosmetic features (similar to the plastic band that goes around the grill opening of The Advent Loudspeaker).

 

A simple, tweeter-level toggle switch on the back utilizing fixed resistors in the simple LCR crossover.  Speaker sensitivity could be sacrificed a bit to give the desired resonance, but not as drastically as Advent's The Small Advent, which was a solid 3 dB less efficient than The Advent Loudspeaker.  This new AR woofer would be able to respond up to 1400 Hz without the precipitous drop in output noted in the existing, heavy-duty 12-inch woofer, and any number of dome or small cone tweeters could be used in a 2-way design.

The problem with this theory was a lack of understanding of the importance of speakers like the 1969 The Advent Loudspeaker and its market success.  AR—nor anyone else in the hi-fi speaker industry—saw this coming.  Neither did Henry Kloss.  By sheer happenstance—and the need to build a cash-cow to fund the company's dwindling financial reserves—Kloss seemed to hit upon the perfect combination for the market place with this speaker, and it had begun to inflict damage on the industry long before AR in 1974 offered a "competitive" product, namely the poorly designed, ill-fated AR-8.  Acoustic Research—and nearly everyone else in the loudspeaker industry—was caught off guard by the success of The Advent Loudspeaker (and to a degree by the Bose 901).

>Even if the above is a bad idea, I've always wondered why AR let the AR-3 overlap with the 3a for so long. Tom; Steve? It would seem this would also be a miscalculation if a less expensive 12 inch speaker should have been under consideration.

The AR-3 was kept in the line longer than it probably should have been, but there was pretty strong demand for it long after the AR-3a was introduced in 1967.  Years after the stellar reviews, great critical acclaim and the reputation as the best loudspeaker available, kept interest alive.  Many listeners simply preferred the sound of the AR-3, too, and the speaker was kept in the line all the way until at least May, 1974!  At the end, the only leftover original parts were the tweeter itself, and the speaker was mostly cobbled together with modified AR-3a drivers.

—Tom

[tysontom]

4 hours ago, Steve F said:

AR was stuck in a late-50's/early-60's mindset. The "40's to 50's-year-old GE engineer listening to classical music and Dave Brubeck in his middle-class suburban split-level home at comfortably moderate volumes." That was their vision of their customer. Oh-so-deliberate and detail-oriented. 

When you think about it, the KLH6/17/5 and OLA were perfectly suitable in the real world for Hendrix, Brubeck and Mozart, but the 4x/2ax/3a really only shined on 2 of those 3. Say what you want about anechoic smoothness and 60-degree off-axis dispersion, AR's technical superiority did not translate into real-world sales success once the buying demographic shifted from the 1962 GE engineer to the 1969 college kid.

The AR-5 was a product of that early-1960's thinking, and although it was a great-sounding refined speaker, AR's myopic view of the music market doomed it to an undistinguished sales career.

As to the 3 overlapping with the 3a, for 50 years, I haven't been able to explain that one. Roy A. was a great designer and product person, but let's call it as it was: he was a lousy marketer. His refusal to deviate from his self-imposed restriction of "room-matched loudspeakers" with the Allison brand showed his lack of marketing vision. There should have been a line of regular forward-facing bookshelf box speakers under the Allison name, using his great Allison drivers. He was stubborn and shortsighted.

As I've said many times on this thread, I can just envision the lunch meeting in 1967 where he sketched out the AR-5 on a napkin to whomever, and I'm sure to Roy, it was a great idea.

Steve F.

"AR was stuck in ta late-50's/early-60's mindset.  The 40's to 50's-year-old GE engineer listening to classical music and Dave Brubeck in his middle-class suburban split-level home at comfortably moderate volumes." [Steve]

"Say what you want about anechoic smoothness and 60-degree off-axis dispersion, AR's technical superiority did not translate into real-world sales success once the buying demographic shifted from the 1962 GE engineer to the 1969 college kid." [Steve]

This might be partially true in theory, perhaps, but it is largely hindsight, guesswork and conjecture that is not really based on facts or supported by high-fidelity speaker market-share data of that time.  So therefore, where was the "real-world" market success if not at AR?  Please forgive me for saying it again: "a beautiful hypothesis slain by an ugly fact." 

AR's speaker market-share peaked in 1966 at 32.30% of the domestic loudspeaker market.  From 1960 until 1966, AR had between 16% and 30% of the market, with KLH—second most popular speaker—ranging around 9-10% during this time.  By 1969, AR still had 28% of the speaker market with KLH and Fisher slogging along at around 7% each.  Advent wasn't even registering in the surveys until 1972, where it had reached 7.6% of the market to AR's 12.2%.  KLH was dropping off the charts by this time, and AR was beginning to decline.  In 1973 AR's share increased to nearly 13% and Advent increased to 9.3%, the highest it ever got.  By 1977 the New Advent Speaker was on the scene, and market share began to tumble down below 7%, and Pioneer began to outsell Advent.  In 1977, AR's share dropped to 1.30%, Advent was off the chart, but AR's share rose to 4% in 1979 with Bose was at 7%.

Therefore, The Advent Loudspeaker and related products hurt specific AR speakers, but overall it never surpassed AR in sales or market penetration while the speaker (TAL) was still in the line.  AR-5 sales, incidentally, remained fairly constant throughout its lifetime except for the very end, from what I can tell.  Of course, it sold better at the beginning with all of the reviews and fanfare, but it managed to sell at the rate of 400-500 units-per-month for many years.  In my view, the speaker that hurt its sales the most was the AR-3a, not The Advent Loudspeaker.

—Tom

[RoyC]

55 minutes ago, tysontom said:

AR-5 sales, incidentally, remained fairly constant throughout its lifetime except for the very end, from what I can tell.  Of course, it sold better at the beginning with all of the reviews and fanfare, but it managed to sell at the rate of 400-500 units-per-month for many years.  In my view, the speaker that hurt its sales the most was the AR-3a, not The Advent Loudspeaker.

 

—Tom

Tom,

Do you have any insight relative to AR's international sales? I'm assisting a forum member who owns a pair of Euro AR-5's and, although there are no labels on the cabinets, they appear to have been manufactured in 1975. Based on some Euro AR-3a cabinets I've seen, the serial numbers are not part of the US sequence. Specifically, my question is could the AR-5 actually have been more popular than being given credit for if international sales are taken into consideration?

Roy

[Steve F]

No, in fact you're precisely incorrect, as your own figures show. As the college-age Baby Boomer buying demographic came to dominate stereo equipment sales through the 1970's, AR's market share dropped to humiliatingly low levels from their pre-eminent status of the 1960's. The low single-digit % in the late 1970's says it all.

I went to college in Boston in the early-mid 1970's, and that town had a concentration of stereo stores and college-age buyers unsurpassed by any other geographic area. It was AR's hometown, yet not one store or chain carried and pushed AR speakers. Every store--Tech Hi Fi, Tweeter Etc, Atlantis Sound, NE Sound, DeMambro and all the others--every one sold against AR. In terms of sales made at retail, after a A-B demonstration in a sound room, Advent beat AR by a virtual shutout. 

The vast majority of AR sales were through mail-order discount houses like Baltimore Stereo Wholesale and the like that routinely peddled AR for 20-25% off of "list" price, and through "not-really independent stores" like Lafayette Radio (shielded from Advent competition there). There were some died-in-the-wool AR dealers scattered around the country and some of them gave AR a fair shake, but boy, they were the exception, not the rule.

Remember, too, AR had a much bigger product line in 1972 than Advent: the 7, 4x, 6, 2x, 2ax, 5, 3a and LST. Advent had two models of speakers. Add the 8 and 4ax in 1973. So it only stands to reason that AR managed to squeeze more total dollars out of 9 models than Advent did out of two. Yet in head-to-head retail competition, Advent destroyed AR. Obliterated them. Advent also had absolutely no--zero, zippo, zilch--international sales or military PX sales, two very large sources of sales revenue for AR.

Comparing overall corporate "total" sales may give the defend-to-the-death-at-all-costs AR crowd some empty solace, but in the retail competition, head to heard, let's hear 'em and decide competition, sorry. No dice.

The unit sales of the Large Advent at retail vs. the 2ax-5-3a in the mid-70's were ridiculous. Revisionist history need not apply here. AR never recovered their previous glory in terms of being the retail favorite.

Steve F.

[AR surround]

1 hour ago, Steve F said:

...Yet in head-to-head retail competition, Advent destroyed AR. Obliterated them. Advent also had absolutely no--zero, zippo, zilch--international sales or military PX sales, two very large sources of sales revenue for AR...

 

It would seem that in today's vintage aftermarket the AR5 is now the more desireable speaker than the Large Advent, at least based on recently completed eBay sales:

AR5: $400 to $900

Large Advent: $280 to $400

When I bought my AR5's in the early 1970's, I had auditioned other speakers that were definitely more impressive playing rock music compared to the AR's.  But I wanted a speaker that sounded the best with acoustical / classical / jazz even though rock was my primary interest.    AR had that mystique when it came to "real" music; and they never had an iota of listening fatigue...ever.

I wish I had heard the Large Advent as everyone raved about their bang-for-the-buck compared to AR as well as other manufacturers.  I understand that it was popular for some people to double them up in a system.

[Aadams]

I may regret this:

What we definitely know about market share 50 years ago is AR lost a bunch of it between 1966 and 1976 and it is generally agreed the failure to address the requirements of new buyers  beginning around 1969 is the reason.  A dispute over the exact number of blows and cuts  AR suffered in each year till 1976 is kind getting off topic IMO. 

Steve F has asked for a product definition and Roy C and Tysontom have offered sketches of a new product that could avoid the market share loss.  Does Marketing have an opinion on the product idea ?

Adams

[tysontom]

4 hours ago, RoyC said:

Tom,

Do you have any insight relative to AR's international sales? I'm assisting a forum member who owns a pair of Euro AR-5's and, although there are no labels on the cabinets, they appear to have been manufactured in 1975. Based on some Euro AR-3a cabinets I've seen, the serial numbers are not part of the US sequence. Specifically, my question is could the AR-5 actually have been more popular than being given credit for if international sales are taken into consideration?

Roy

Roy, the European (Holland and UK) versions had another letter designation in front of the serial number, usually hand-written, so I'm not sure if the numbers were in sequence from the US counterparts or not; I don't think these used US numbers, though I am unsure of this.  Some of the US models had the letter "K" in front of them (indicating the 11th in a series).  I've seen some European versions with numbers as high as 7600 in the numbering scheme, but I don't know the year made.  These did have the Velcro grills with dark-weave (brown) grill with the standard logo plate.  The US didn't start using Velcro attachment until 1973.  By this time, too, all of the European ARs had the back panel painted a brown-speckle finish rather than being left raw in the US tradition.

Klaus Mollgaard has/had a pair of AR-5s, one is a definite European version and the other appears to be a US version (12000 range) sold over there or shipped over there.  The Euro version has a slightly different numbering scheme than the US version, and the number is lower (7000 range).

--Tom 

[Aadams]

I have tried to make a visual aid that illustrates why Rock fans went for the Advents.  I have used an AR5 and AR3 curve to illustrate the difference between AR 10 inchers and Advent.  Substitute the  AR 10” of your choice.  The AR3 is my Advent surrogate because I couldn’t find an OLA curve and this suits the purpose.

Basically the chart shows two boxes representing the frequency range spanned by two very well known bass heavy tunes. One, the very famous “Another One Bites the Dust” in the green box and the other “Flight of the Cosmic Hippo”.  “Dust” used a 4 string bass.  “Hippo” 5 string.  In both of the recordings the Bass line is the prominent musical part.

The charts show:

1.       Most of the very simple bass melody in “Dust” is inside the 5db down area of the AR 5 curve and just inside the 3db down area of the AR3a/Advent curve.

2.       A substantial portion of bass melody in “Hippo is in +/- 3b area of the AR5 but there are points where the bass line submerges almost 15db down whereas on the AR3a it doesn’t go below 7db down. 

Neither piece of music was around before 1980 but they are easily accessible today and provide clear examples to audibly illustrate the point.  

Edited for clarity.

 

[tysontom]

6 hours ago, Aadams said:

I have tried to make a visual aid that illustrates why Rock fans went for the Advents.  I have used an AR5 and AR3 curve to illustrate the difference between AR 10 inchers and Advent.  Substitute the  AR 10” of your choice.  The AR3 is my Advent surrogate because I couldn’t find an OLA curve and this suits the purpose.

Basically the chart shows two boxes representing the frequency range spanned by two very well known bass heavy tunes. One, the very famous “Another One Bites the Dust” in the green box and the other “Flight of the Cosmic Hippo”.  “Dust” used a 4 string bass.  “Hippo” 5 string.  In both of the recordings the Bass line is the prominent musical part.

The charts show:

1.       Most of the very simple bass melody in “Dust” is inside the 5db down area of the AR 5 curve and just inside the 3db down area of the AR3a/Advent curve.

2.       A substantial portion of bass melody in “Hippo is in +/- 3b area of the AR5 but there are points where the bass line submerges almost 15db down whereas on the AR3a it doesn’t go below 7db down. 

Neither piece of music was around before 1980 but they are easily accessible today and provide clear examples to audibly illustrate the point.  

Edited for clarity.

 

These response comparisons are valid if you are comparing an AR-3a and an AR-5 buried in a hole, flush with top of the ground, radiating into a perfect 2π solid angle.  There is that intrinsic difference, of course. 

On the other hand, if you had a listening room with AR-5s—and the room supported good deep bass—and you put one in a corner up off the floor, you would get twice the power into the bass and an extension (along with other bass frequencies below radiation impedance) into deeper bass.  In other words, by decreasing the solid angle from 180˚ to 90˚, you double the output in bass.  Sometimes mounting one channel in a corner and the other along the wall on a shelf or stand against a wall will give good results as well.

So, in the absence of a pair of AR-3as or Advents, moving one AR-5 speaker into a corner can have a dramatic effect and make up for some of the difference.

[harry398]

I own both of these....AR3a and AR5....among others....but to the point......Some people prefer the lighter bass of the ar5...NOT ME.

Put the ar5 in the corner.....all you want, the ar3a dominates it.  I have done it countless times....

I toy with the idea of taking my AR5, and if I could find someone to cut out the woofer hole to fit a 12 inch woofer (that I have plenty of), and slide in a ar11 crossover (that I have -or modify the ar11 crossover back to ar3a specs).

 

I own 2 sets of ar3a's....one set has the Hivi tweeters......both are recapped.......both have incredible bass and sound awesome.  The ar5 just doesnt fill in, but I guess some prefer that?     Sales are the technical indicator of what people prefer.  

What still confuses me is the crossover networks,  why the differences and why they went for different approaches.  Primarily, ar11 vs ar3a...while published crossover points were similar, CAP values arent.   so........they aint!

 

For reference, I Own ar3a (2), ar5, ar11b, ar98ls, ar9lsi, ar50.  and some others......     Those 3a's are quite remarkable, Great sounding and fun, but the 98ls is more accurate.  

 

so....for me...The AR5 needs a 12 inch woofer, and when I get the time, I WILL do it.

[Aadams]

8 hours ago, tysontom said:

On the other hand, if you had a listening room with AR-5s—and the room supported good deep bass—and you put one in a corner up off the floor, you would get twice the power into the bass and an extension (along with other bass frequencies below radiation impedance) into deeper bass.  In other words, by decreasing the solid angle from 180˚ to 90˚, you double the output in bass.  Sometimes mounting one channel in a corner and the other along the wall on a shelf or stand against a wall will give good results as well.

I agree and have tried it all.  What some of us are saying is,  In the 1969 -1975 time frame, "you can make up the difference with speaker placement" is a rationalization to help the shopper justify a preference toward the AR10", similar to redecorating a room to make it feel larger.  The same placement options are available with the Advent and Ar3.