Jump to content

AR 5 woofer question


Phxjohn
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hope that everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving(where celebrated) !

There is a listing on Ebay for a pair of AR 5's. They have cloth surround woofers. I thought the 5 was introduced with foam surround woofers. Is my thinking incorrect ? While we are here...an advantage of cloth surround is never having to refoam. Is there any advantage to a foam surround ? 

 

Thank you,

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your recollection is correct - - -  original AR-5's had only foam surround woofers, and in fact, it may have been the first AR speaker model to tout this distinct development. The pair you refer to might indeed be terrific (and expensive :huh:), but In order to install the cloth woofers, the AR-5 cabs required modification to fit the larger diameter basket frames - -  not certain about the associated coil compatibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It is interesting to read about the different versions of the bass drivers used over time in AR 2 series speakers.

 Also can be confusing at times as I am looking at a High Fidelity Test Report review of the AR 2ax speaker  where it mentions the new woofer ( with new cone, voice coil and suspension)  and hemispherical tweeter in this updated speaker as being the same as used in the costlier AR 5. The confusing part is that the review is dated  Feb. 1966 which I think is earlier than what I have read regarding the original introduction of the AR 5 model.

Dean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's difficult to keep all these things straight and there are only a few of us AR OCDs left to chime in.

That High Fidelity 2ax test report is of the "new" 2ax and was originally published in Noveber 1970. The AR-5 was a '68-69 intro, so the info regarding this 2ax vis-a-vis the AR-5 is correct.

The 1966 date was HF's review of the "old" 2ax, which did not, of course, share the foam surround woofer or 3/4" hard paper dome tweeter of the 5. I don't know what source you're reading for that 2ax review, but if they combine a 1966 date with a review of the "new" 2ax, that is clearly not a reliable, historically-accurate source. Tom T, Roy C and myself are probably your best bets as to 'when' this model or variant or driver or change in x-o frequency occured.  ('Old' 2ax to 'new' 2ax? 'Old 2x to 'new' 2x? When 3a x-o change from 575 to 525Hz? 5 x-o change from 650 to 550Hz? 3a change from Alnico/cloth to ferrite/foam woofer? Did the LST, LST-2 or 5 ever have a cloth surround woofer? Did the factory ever offer an upgrade from AR-3 to 3a? Ask us.)

Steve F.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Steve. Good to have folks with historical backgrounds knowledge on these forums.

My source was  High Fidelity's Test Reports 1976 edition.  I also have the 1st edition of the same compilation of stereo equipment reviews for 1973 and they do not list any date on the same review. After thinking about it, my assumption was (which you confirmed) that the 1966 date was of the original  1st review  of the 2ax by  High Fidelity and for whatever reason, they decided to include this  original review date in the caption information of the review compiled in the 1976 edition. They did update the price of the speaker  which was listed at a range $109 - 128 depending on finish in the 1973 edition to just a single price of $165  in the 1976 edition in the caption information, so it looks like they were just carrying over relevant information as needed from one addition to the next.  I missed the 1974 and 1975 editions (which I also assume were printed as the introductory page for the 1976 edition says that it is the 4th such annual edition) so not sure when the review dates in the captions actually began to be printed. They also changed some of the wording from review edition to the next so they were doing some revisions of the text as well. So, probably all of the information in the review was correct for each edition - just the published date in the caption was not relevant. 

But, other than this date discrepancy, the reviews in these compilations are entertaining   for those of us interested in such things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...