ra.ra Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 26 minutes ago, Michael T said: ....going by the drawing that ra.ra posted above.... Whoops - - sorry about that - - I hadn't even thought to check the #5 coil spec, but Roy's value does jibe with this chart that is a good reference. (I see now that Roy just posted an earlier version of Tom's coil compilation). 39 minutes ago, Michael T said: ....but it seems ........ I should leave this stuff to others. Your attempts to document this are very much appreciated, and this "new" schematic could become a very useful resource. I can't seem to find your revised schematic attachment for viewing, but if you're able to make the necessary revisions with these various bits of input, a more updated 2ax schematic (L-pad version) might become a great contribution to the body of knowledge here. Don't get frustrated with our picky comments - - like JKent said, your first diagram was a really great effort, very nicely drawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyC Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 22 minutes ago, ra.ra said: Whoops - - sorry about that - - I hadn't even thought to check the #5 coil spec, but Roy's value does jibe with this chart that is a good reference. (I see now that Roy just posted an earlier version of Tom's coil compilation). Your attempts to document this are very much appreciated, and this "new" schematic could become a very useful resource. I can't seem to find your revised schematic attachment for viewing, but if you're able to make the necessary revisions with these various bits of input, a more updated 2ax schematic (L-pad version) might become a great contribution to the body of knowledge here. Don't get frustrated with our picky comments - - like JKent said, your first diagram was a really great effort, very nicely drawn. I agree, ra.ra, ...and thanks for posting the updated chart. I was only able to find my earlier version. Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKent Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 If we could veer off on a tangent for just a moment.... Anyone know what the Code # is for the 0.20mH coil? I think this list of the inductors in the AR-90 is complete except for that one. 2 x #6 1.370mH #10 3.83mH #13 2.630mH #14 0.105mH #?? 0.20mH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael T Posted January 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 hours ago, ra.ra said: Your attempts to document this are very much appreciated, and this "new" schematic could become a very useful resource. I can't seem to find your revised schematic attachment for viewing, but if you're able to make the necessary revisions with these various bits of input, a more updated 2ax schematic (L-pad version) might become a great contribution to the body of knowledge here. Don't get frustrated with our picky comments - - like JKent said, your first diagram was a really great effort, very nicely drawn. Thanks for the encouragement. It isn't the "picky comments" that frustrated me. I'm just frustrated with myself. I know that a drawing must be right to be effective. Over the last 9 years I have slowly been fixing outdated schematics at work. Nothing like troubleshooting a control panel that controls a complex conveyor system with a 40 pg. schematic that has outdated information. The fact that I struggled with a simple crossover is a bit embarrassing for me. I'll be fixing my drawing tomorrow and will post it once I'm "positive" it is right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ra.ra Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 hours ago, JKent said: If we could veer off on a tangent for just a moment.... JKent, that .20 mH coil appears to be #21, according to this AR-92 crossover drawing from the Library. For the most part, this coil chart - - as good as it is - - covers the Classic era models and then dribbles into the subsequent series which featured the AR-11 and AR-10pi. While this coil chart is as good as I've seen, I've been curious about: 1. there is no inclusion of the AR-1, AR-2 or AR-3 models. 2. #4 coil does not include mention of the AR-6 (version 1). 3. none of these coils shows 265 turns, the coil found in the two-cap version of the AR-4x (and others?). 1 hour ago, Michael T said: I know that a drawing must be right to be effective. That's exactly right, and do remember that you'll be helping all of us in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffS Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 5 hours ago, ra.ra said: 1. there is no inclusion of the AR-1, AR-2 or AR-3 models. I can add one small piece of data to this table, the #3 coil was used in the woofer circuit of the AR-3, with a second #3 added to the midrange circuit in the last version of that speaker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael T Posted January 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 oops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyC Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Michael T said: Ok, If I made any mistakes this time, please flog me and send me back to audiokarma . JK AR-2ax L-Pad.pdf Looks good from here, Michael! ...and, if you wish, you can easily turn it into a "later" 2ax drawing by: -changing the woofer to "foam surround" -replacing the #5 coil to #7 (1.88mh) -changing the tweeter to "3/4" dome Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael T Posted January 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 3 minutes ago, RoyC said: Looks good from here, Michael! ...and, if you wish, you can easily turn it into a "later" 2ax drawing by: -changing the woofer to "foam surround" -replacing the #5 coil to #7 (1.88mh) -changing the tweeter to "3/4" dome Roy I think i read somewhere that if the tweeter is changed to the 3/4" tweeter a small value coil need to be inserted either in parallel or series with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael T Posted January 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 Also, do you still leave out the 25 ohm resister for the tweeter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ra.ra Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 I was just looking at this when Roy posted. I agree, this drawing is looking very good, and is already a significant improvement over what is found in the Library, but if I could make a few minor remarks: * there is one small (but important) typo in the title block * these schematics are more helpful when at least the "+" side of drivers is indicated * noting "225 turns" is also helpful - - sometimes that's all you see on the coil spool 4 minutes ago, Michael T said: I think i read somewhere that if the tweeter is changed to the 3/4" tweeter a small value coil need to be inserted either in parallel or series with it. You might be thinking about when this tweeter is replaced with the prescribed Hi-Vi replacement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyC Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 54 minutes ago, Michael T said: Also, do you still leave out the 25 ohm resister for the tweeter? Yes...the 3/4" dome tweeter is typically more degraded, and is even more likely to benefit from the L-pad sans resistor. I suppose you could mention the option to use or not use the resistor with the mid and tweeter L-pads, based on whether or not the repair person wants the L-pad to act like the pot. A parallel coil is only used with the HiVi replacement tweeter. Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyC Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 48 minutes ago, ra.ra said: * these schematics are more helpful when at least the "+" side of drivers is indicated Ra.ra, This can't be done when it is not known for sure which side of the driver is +. I mentioned this in my first post regarding Michael's drawing. It is likely that the yellow dot is not the + side of the mid driver in this case (as it is with other AR designs). The early tweeter, which was also used in the AR-3, is said to have had voice coil polarity changes along the way, and has no labels on it...and it has never been established which version was used in the 2ax. The later 3/4" tweeter's + side is on the left side facing the tweeter, and is crossed to the right cabinet surface terminal, so this would be known in later 2ax's. Offhand, I don't recall, however, which one of the tweeter's surface terminals is connected to the yellow wire. Frankly, it isn't relevant if the wiring scheme is followed and original drivers are used. Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael T Posted January 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 OK, I made the changes and updated the post above. I also included the drawing for the later 2ax's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ra.ra Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 41 minutes ago, RoyC said: Frankly, it isn't relevant if the wiring scheme is followed and original drivers are used. Thx, Roy, and yes, I did read your earlier post, but then I just looked at johnnieo's schematic once more before making final comments. I understand there were several manufacturing or engineering changes along the way with the 2ax, but it's still a bit bewildering (to me at least). Perhaps I find this confusing because the "official" AR schematic for the AR-4 - - which uses the same driver as the 2ax mid - - clearly shows the yellow dot terminal connected to the positive cabinet terminal. So just to summarize, in a 2ax crossover, we need not be concerned about like or opposite polarity among all three drivers? Each driver can be installed without regard for wire color or terminal designation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael T Posted January 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 15 minutes ago, ra.ra said: Thx, Roy, and yes, I did read your earlier post, but then I just looked at johnnieo's schematic once more before making final comments. I understand there were several manufacturing or engineering changes along the way with the 2ax, but it's still a bit bewildering (to me at least). Perhaps I find this confusing because the "official" AR schematic for the AR-4 - - which uses the same driver as the 2ax mid - - clearly shows the yellow dot terminal connected to the positive cabinet terminal This is what made me dig into this and why I originally made certain assumptions. I finally just drew the schematic according to the wire colors in my crossover and disregarded the + and -. I actually drew this just to make sure I was wiring my speakers right. I'm gonna post the .dwg file and anyone who has autocad or solid works and wants to make changes can do so. It will have to wait until next week tho since I drew it at work (unless I redo the whole thing at home). Then someone can put it in the library and this can all be over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael T Posted January 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 Yes I'm frustrated. Yes I'm acting like a big 50 year old child. Yes I'm going to finish the speakers and they will be amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyC Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 2 hours ago, ra.ra said: Thx, Roy, and yes, I did read your earlier post, but then I just looked at johnnieo's schematic once more before making final comments. I understand there were several manufacturing or engineering changes along the way with the 2ax, but it's still a bit bewildering (to me at least). Perhaps I find this confusing because the "official" AR schematic for the AR-4 - - which uses the same driver as the 2ax mid - - So just to summarize, in a 2ax crossover, we need not be concerned about like or opposite polarity among all three drivers? Each driver can be installed without regard for wire color or terminal designation? The short answer to your first question is "yes", as long as both cabinets are wired in the same way, and consistent with what we know about original 2ax wiring. The original AR-4 drawing you posted does not show + or - anywhere. Why should Michael's? The answer to your second question is "of course not". Long answer: Assuming you understand that the + and - markings often found next to a driver's terminals represent voice coil polarity (not amp polarity)... you stated, "clearly shows the yellow dot terminal connected to the positive cabinet terminal." OK...so what side of the tweeter's voice coil does the yellow dot represent, + or -? Is the polarity "reversed"? Recent tests mentioned here at CSP suggest that the yellow dot is the 2ax mid's negative side. I used to believe the yellow dot always represented the + side of its voice coil. A better question...What difference does it make when original drivers are being used? The yellow wire connects to the yellow dot! The only way to know for sure is to gather a bunch of 2ax mids and early tweeters and bench test them for polarity. Maybe someone will do that, but until then it is easier to just follow the existing wiring with the assistance of drawings like Michael's, and the one you posted earlier in the thread. Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael T Posted January 5, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 I've never attached a battery to a dome tweeter to check if it is good so I don't know if there is enough deflection to see (or if it is safe to do on a little tweeter), but couldn't one take a AA battery and check each driver for polarity? Use whichever polarity causes the drivers to pull in (or push out, as long as they are all the same. Are the tweets and mids out of phase with the woofs? I thought I read that they were but I could be mistaken. My $.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyC Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Michael T said: The whole idea of doing these speakers was a bit foolish to begin with. I like music well enough but I could care less about "stage" or "pure reproduction ". I listen to new wave music and most of the group's are a lead singer and a synthesizer. My front speakers have great mids, that about it. My center channel is awesome for highs and I have a 12" sub for bass that is nice and tight. My rears actually sound better than my towers. So the ARs would probably not add anything to my system, especially when I'm in the mood to shake the dishes in the kitchen. To take advantage of these speakers I would need a dedicated system, meaning I will need to buy a TT and an amp at the very least. And i only have about 10 records and 15 cds. After dropping $320 total cost for the speakees I'm not sure I can justify any more purchases or projects for a while. Yes I'm frustrated. Yes I'm acting like a big 50 year old child. Yes I'm going to finish the speakers and they will be amazing. ...and you were doing so well. Hey, you actually may not find them to be amazing, but you will be an AR-2ax wiz back at Audiokarma. Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyC Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 1 hour ago, Michael T said: I've never attached a battery to a dome tweeter to check if it is good so I don't know if there is enough deflection to see (or if it is safe to do on a little tweeter), but couldn't one take a AA battery and check each driver for polarity? Use whichever polarity causes the drivers to pull in (or push out, as long as they are all the same. Are the tweets and mids out of phase with the woofs? I thought I read that they were but I could be mistaken. My $.02 There is not enough deflection with the AR tweeter to easily see, but some recent battery tests suggest the yellow dot to be on the - side of the 2ax mid...which would place it in phase with the woofer in your drawing (you could label the red woofer wire terminal as +). Edit: I just checked a 2ax mid I have on the parts shelf, and the yellow dot is on the negative side of this one. Roy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dchristie Posted January 5, 2018 Report Share Posted January 5, 2018 Just to confirm Roy's polarity test, I had both of the protective screens removed from my AR 2ax mids (due to aging glues) during my restoration, and both of my drivers also showed the yellow dot was the negative input of the driver. This originally confused me as well due to the older schematics showing the yellow dot to be on the positive. But the easy solution was to just follow the original color code of the wiring and attach yellow wires to those inputs marked with a yellow dot and forget about absolute polarity. Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lakecat Posted January 6, 2018 Report Share Posted January 6, 2018 On 1/4/2018 at 5:23 PM, Michael T said: Boy I'm glad we got the melted speaker mystery solved. You seem to get annoyed easy...chill. Roy....I only asked as most of the "classic" receivers can't handle four ohms at high volume....and that was a lot of damage. The 3a's have shut down three of my old but recapped receivers that are rated at 120 watts per or higher when playing bass heavy music at 50-60 watts or little higher. That's why I purchased a McIntosh 2205. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael T Posted January 6, 2018 Author Report Share Posted January 6, 2018 K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JKent Posted January 6, 2018 Report Share Posted January 6, 2018 Mike, Let's ratchet back a bit. "Some guy" is an established and respected forum member who greeted you with "welcome to the AR club where patience is a virtue". You've received a LOT of help from guys with a lot of patience. Going on 6 pages here. And as you noted yourself, discussions on these threads can sometimes go off on tangents. One of the hallmarks of this forum is the civility with which members treat each other. No "flaming" here--just a bunch of hobbyists with varying degrees of experience/expertise sharing their mutual interest. Oh--and no grammar police either. "Chill" is good advice. -Kent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.