Subjective impressions of AR 8/10" bass vs. 12" bass

[Steve F]

I purchased AR-2ax’s in Feb 1972 when I was a senior in high school. They were my first “good” speakers. I bought them after months of deliberating between several other speakers—AR-6’s, a pair of mint-condition used AR-5’s at a local dealer (new 5’s were out of my price range) and 2ax’s. My friends mostly had Large Advents or Infinity 1001’s, which were pretty popular around my town because a major local dealer really pushed them.

 

My dad had 4x’s and my two older cousins—both fellow jazz musicians/enthusiasts—had 3a’s. So I was AR-oriented from the start and I ended up with the 2ax’s. Never regretted it—a truly great, well-balanced speaker that sounded natural and convincing on a wide range of music.

 

However…..this is an observation that I made almost right away. It’s a subjective observation, not a measured one. I really don’t care what the “numbers” say; it’s really only the listening impressions/experiences that count.

 

Here it is: To my ear, in my experience, the AR 10” woofer bass performance, the real-world experience of listening to a 2ax or 5, is much, much closer to the subjective experience of listening to an AR 8” woofer than it is to listening to an AR 12” woofer.

 

In other words, my 2ax’s bass didn’t seem to be all that much different from my Dad’s 4x’s. The 2ax’s mids and highs were completely different—much more spacious and extended—but the overall bass experience seemed pretty close.

 

The 3a, not so. Its bass was in another world, a different universe altogether. But the 10” ARs and 8” ARs seemed very similar. Although the “numbers” may have put the 2ax midway between the 4x and the 3a (55-45-35Hz), the subjective overall listening experience put the 4x and 2ax almost on top of each other, with the 3a in a different league completely.

 

(Yes, I know Julian said in his AR-6 test that the 6’s and 5’s bass response was virtually identical, but I’m talking about my Dad’s 4x’s and my 2ax’s. They also seemed “identical,” regardless of the actual numbers.)

This leads me to this conclusion: There are two coarse categories of subjective bass response: Speakers that convincingly reproduce low-C bass (32Hz), and those that don’t.

 

Thoughts?

 

Steve F.

[Aadams]

3 hours ago, Steve F said:

Thoughts?

Agree. Until around 1967 bass was not a prominent part in top 40 popular music.  In June 1967 recorded bass became a big deal on Sgt Peppers Lonely .............By 1969 bass lines were becoming featured elements of pop songs.  In pop music today, excluding electronic sounds, the only musical instrument that produces a clear 32hz note is a 5 string bass which was not common until the 80s.  Classical music has had strong low bass since the late 1800s and not until digital recording was it possible to capture and reproduce the full range of low bass that is present in some orchestra music but, to the extent that it could captured and presented in recording, the AR12" speakers were ready.  The AR3 series will not, without boost,  make much of a sound at 32hz nor will it reproduce the reverberation of an orchestral bass drum after the mallet strike but it has  everything else covered.  The AR9 does it all but with small compromise IMO.  

Bottom line.  The gap between AR8/10 and 12 is really there for music that contains strong low frequencies below 50hz.   The lowest note on 4 string bass is 42 hz.  AR10" are rolling off at 48hz and some of the 8s are so close behind it doesn't matter. The 12" are still going strong at 42HZ. 

Good topic.

Adams

[stupidhead]

interesting. you suggest that the 2ax and 5 have similar bass performance. just out of curiosity is that your own observation or assumption? I love my 5s (and 2ax') and find them to have a different bass response from each other. it definitely takes more juice to get the 5s thumping but they are a more defined bass in my opinion.

I can fully appreciate your aligning the bass response from 4x to 2ax however. clearly that is where the similarities end!

I know you say no regrets, I probably would have gone for the minty 5's.

Geoff

[JKent]

3 hours ago, Steve F said:

This leads me to this conclusion: There are two coarse categories of subjective bass response: Speakers that convincingly reproduce low-C bass (32Hz), and those that don’t.

Steve,

Interesting point but how do you evaluate that? I used to think the opening "double" low C (16Hz) organ pedal in Also Sprach Zarathustra should be a good speaker test but seem to remember reading "somewhere" that the recordings were all compressed because phonograph systems and many more modern mid-fi systems just couldn't handle those frequencies, so we're really hearing higher-frequency harmonics on those recordings.

Do I have that right?

-Kent

[Steve F]

Re: 2ax vs. 5 bass: The 'new' 2ax and the 5 had 'essentially' identical bass response at first (when the 5 had a slightly different woofer), then they had absolutely identical bass response later, when they used the exact same woofer in the exact same-sized enclosure.

I read in many places that the opening of ASZ was low-C, 32Hz. The difference in the 3a's ability to do this and the 5/2ax/6/4x was night-and-day.

Subjective impression: You'd be sitting around listening to a new LP at modest volume on the 3a and then out of nowhere, this low, low tone would just come up out of the floor and envelop you. There it was and then it was gone. Whoa, what a surprise. Not expecting that, not at all.

The 2ax/5/6/4x never surprised you like that. They were clean, musical and accurate, but they never snuck up on you. If you owned 3a's in the 1970's, you remember this. If not, you don't.

I remember this like it was yesterday. That's how I evaluate it.

Steve F.

[Aadams]

3 hours ago, Steve F said:

but they never snuck up on you. If you owned 3a's in the 1970's, you remember this. If not, you don't.

This experience is not limited to the 1970s.  Same thing can happen with any speaker than can forcefully produce a 32hz tone.  Holst Planets, Saturn movement has a low 30 organ tone that snuck up on me one day listening to AR9s which, before that moment, I never knew was there.

[ar_pro]

Also in the 2nd movement of Saint-Saëns' Symphony #3, the Maestoso is introduced by a full C major chord on concert organ; the AR-9 is one of the very few speakers from its era that could reproduce the nearly-subsonic notes.

A personal favorite is the Philadelphia Orchestra recording with Michael Murray, on Telarc.

[Rich W]

Steve, interesting post.  

From my experience, the difference between the AR-3a and its lesser brethren is a matter of amplitude in that lowest octave relative to the upper bass/mid-range and the ability to reproduce it at substantial volume levels, and not from the inability for the 5/2ax/4x to reproduce frequencies in that range.  My 4xa's will rattle the windows in my living room with a 27 hz tone, but only to a point volume-wise and of course, diminished relative to higher frequencies.  That's where the 12 inch ARs show their authority - with flat frequency response extending that sub-contra octave and ability to reproduce it at high volume levels.

- Rich W

[Rich W]

As a follow up to my previous post, it's pretty incredible how a pair of diminutive AR-7's respond to a substantial boost in the 31 hz range with a graphic equalizer. Just don't expect to play them at anything higher than room-conversational volume levels!

[Aadams]

18 hours ago, Steve F said:

this low, low tone would just come up out of the floor and envelop you

The effect of bass covering the floor like a fog is exactly how I would describe the experience of these sustained low notes.  The ability to do this separates the 12” ARs from all of the smaller ones.   I only repeatedly listen to music I like so in my library I can think of 5 instances where I know it will happen, only one of which is not classical.

The moments are so rare there is a case to be made that, if you are not hooked on bass, the AR5 is the best of the AR Classics. 

11 hours ago, ar_pro said:

Also in the 2nd movement of Saint-Saëns' Symphony #3, the Maestoso

You had me going for a moment with the Organ Symphony.  I never listen to the second movement and thought I was missing one of the bass fog moments. I always just skip to the last movement which I thought was the third but it turns out is the fourth and is also the Maestoso.   Try the prologue to Mephistofole. It begins with an angelic choir and ends with the gates of hell thundering open.  The only version I have is Telarc ASO Robert Shaw.

Aadams

[ar_pro]

3 hours ago, Aadams said:

You had me going for a moment with the Organ Symphony.  I never listen to the second movement and thought I was missing one of the bass fog moments. I always just skip to the last movement which I thought was the third but it turns out is the fourth and is also the Maestoso.   Try the prologue to Mephistofole. It begins with an angelic choir and ends with the gates of hell thundering open.  The only version I have is Telarc ASO Robert Shaw.

Aadams

Yes, that's another impressive Telarc recording from the early days of digital;  they did an excellent production job on these large-scale performances, and the recordings have held up remarkably well.

 I can also suggest Riccardo Muti with the Milan Teatro alla Scala orchestra & chorus on RCA, and be sure to check out the YouTube video of Muti with Teatro Romano playing at El Djem in Tunisia - fantastic!  

 

[Aadams]

1 hour ago, ar_pro said:

I can also suggest Riccardo Muti with the Milan Teatro alla Scala orchestra & chorus on RCA, and be sure to check out the YouTube video of Muti with Teatro Romano playing at El Djem in Tunisia - fantastic!  

Thanks for the link. I never thought of looking on Youtube for Mefistofele but this Muti performance is good through headphones and gives an idea of the thunderous ending.

Here is the other side. The Finale which, beginning at 4:01, is the musical epilogue to the prologue.    I have never actually seen it, only heard.  This is truly large scale material from the San Francisco Opera. I would never see this in my hometown.

 

[ligs]

Has anyone mentioned the  system Q value of the woofer and the perceived sound quality of the bass. As I recall AR 12" systems typically have Q values less than 0.8. AR 10" systems typically have Q values around 1.15. AR 9 with the twin 12: woofers in a large enclosure has a published Q value of 0.5. 

[lARrybody]

As far as the AR2ax 10 in woofer being subjectively closer to the 8 in. woofer of the 4x than to the 11 in woofer of the AR 3a, someone has added another wrinkle to the equation. These modified 2ax's may answer that question. Currently listed on the auction site.

 

[Aadams]

On 1/9/2018 at 11:10 AM, Steve F said:

This leads me to this conclusion: There are two coarse categories of subjective bass response: Speakers that convincingly reproduce low-C bass (32Hz), and those that don’t.

This is a very coarse division of categories.  Full range speakers that are flat or even 3db down at 32hz have never been numerous and have always been large and expensive.  IMO the vast majority of listeners would perceive as much subjective difference from more common speakers that don't roll off before 42hz, mainly because that is the bottom range of most music and almost all non-classical music. 42hz is easily reached by any 12"AR and a number vintage speakers that are not AR. The subjective difference, in bass, between an AR8/10 and any speaker that will reach 42hz is easily demonstrated by playing The Beatles Abbey Road album, with the 2012 re-release being the best example IMO.  Abbey Road almost exactly covers the gap between the beginning roll off of an AR5 at 52hz and the 42hz mark.

Aadams

[Martin]

Very interesting topic. I will respectfully disagree with the idea that the subjective bass capability of a 10" 2aX or 5  is closer to that of the 8" 4X than to the 3a and feel that the exact opposite is true.  The 3a certainly has extreme low-bass authority possessed by few others, but the 2aX & 5 come pretty close and are able to accurately reproduce most of what's present, on 1970s vinyl, anyway. The 4x does an admirable job for such a small package, but its limits are too easily reached whereas In practical usage, with music rather than with test tones, the limits of the 2aX or 5 are not so easily reached.  Room acoustics & speaker placement seem to be at least as important as 12" vs. 10", if not more so.  

[DavidR]

Steve, do you feel the same about the AR90's 10 inch woofers compared to the other 12" models mentioned?

[Steve F]

Steve, do you feel the same about the AR90's 10 inch woofers compared to the other 12" models mentioned?

No, not al all. I was talking about Classic-era ARs--3a, 2ax, 4x. As is typical, the dreaded "thread creep" takes the discussion way off course, into areas not even touched upon by the original poster. 90's and 9's are not part of this discussion and either one has bass superior to the 3a.

In my highly-subjective experience, listening to my 2ax's and my Dad's 4x's--in the same room, hooked up to the 'A-B' speaker outputs of his amp--the two models had comparable bass at normal everyday listening levels. Clean, strong, detailed, musical. Not a huge difference in the subjective quality or reach of the bass. Not talking mid-treble, I'm taking bass. Let's stay on topic.

My cousin's 3a's were from a different planet, bass-wise. The 2's and 4's were the same species from the same planet.  Very similar. The 3a's were aliens from another world. The gap between the 2's and the 4's bass was very slight, but it was HUGE between them and the 3a's.

Steve F.

[Aadams]

On 1/9/2018 at 11:10 AM, Steve F said:

This leads me to this conclusion: There are two coarse categories of subjective bass response: Speakers that convincingly reproduce low-C bass (32Hz), and those that don’t.

Henry Kloss agreed with you regarding the 3a.  He implied the Advent could shake the room at 30hz the equal of any speaker of the day.  I think this is puffery.  I would never claim that my Advents or 3as could shake a room at 30hz without suffering abuse (the speakers).  A speaker just has to be convincing to 42hz to satisfy most people.  Room placement may help an AR 10" sound out a convincing low note but placement alone will not change the fact that at 42hz it is still around 8db down from 52hz . 

 

[Aadams]

On 1/15/2018 at 3:22 PM, Aadams said:

A speaker just has to be convincing to 42hz to satisfy most people.  Room placement may help an AR 10" sound out a convincing low note but placement alone will not change the fact that at 42hz it is still around 8db down from 52hz . 

I have commenced arguing with myself.  What I said in the statement above is inaccurate and arbitrary. A speaker just has to meet a listener's expectations to be satisfying.  Song lyrics always occur well within range of any speaker that is listed in the CSP forums. Virtually all melodies that anyone can hum are above 100hz and closer to 250hz and this is all a lot of people expect in low distortion frequency response.  Whether the musical detail that occurs below 100hz is of interest is entirely subjective and is strictly in the ear of the beholder. 

However, with regard to this thread topic of subjective bass perception between Classic AR speakers, if one wants to be prepared to hear the broadest range of  musical sounds, good output at 42hz is necessary.  Beethoven's lowest note is 42 hz,  modern country music is full of 5 string basses that can get to 32hz and Thelonius Monk could go to 27hz on grand piano. 

Adams